NC0021253_Permit (Issuance)_20000719

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit: NC0021253
Havelock WWTP
Document Type: ermit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (67B)
Correspondence re: Modeling
Permit
History
Document Date: July 19, 2000
This aocumeat ie priatea oa reuse paper-ignore sizy
content on the reverse eiae

NPDES Permit#NCO021253/City of Haveloc
Subject: NPDES Permit 4 NCO021253/City of Havelock
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:21:23 -0400
From: "Susan Rexrode" <[e-mail]>
To: "Susan Wilson" <[e-mail]>
Susan Wilson,
The City of Havelock has received its NPDES permit. I have just finished an initial review, and everything looks good
except that I noticed there was no monitoring requirement for nickel in this one. I know that you had planned to
remove aluminum, lead, and chromium, but I wasn't sure about nickel. We have not detected any nickel in the
effluent for the past eighteen months, and we have only detected it about five times since January 1997. 1 am hoping
that is why it isn't in the permit, but in case it was deleted accidentally, I thought I should let you know. Thanks again
for all the effort you and your staff put into this process.
Susan Rexrode
-Np_s FoP- S &4r .
t9 - '11 10Z II ALtsst � g Pva. gAJ k e�oc
�F�( R 10 I � 4 4 SAtD MLihLS tJeR-& L . L . So
Ni, tnIRS �RoP�C:D h5 Nl�l-L .
I oft 7/21/00 10:34 AM

State of North Carolina �
Department of Environment 1, • : '
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt,Jr., Governor ENR
Bill Holman, Secretary NCD
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
July 12, 2000
Mr. Thomas A. Phillips, City Manager
City of Havelock
P.O. Drawer 368
Havelock, North Carolina 28532
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Havelock Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit Number NC0021253
Craven County
Dear Mr. Phillips:
In accordance with the application for a permit for effluent discharge from the City of
Havelock's municipal wastewater treatment plant, the Division is forwarding herewith the City's
NPDES permit renewal. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General
Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994.
The City of Havelock discharges in the Neuse River Basin (NRB). All streams in the NRB have
been designated as nutrient sensitive waters (NSW) as a result of algal bloom problems in the estuary.
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission recently adopted rules establishing the
Neuse River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy for the reduction of phosphorus
and nitrogen inputs. The point source rule (15A NCAC 213.0234) is intended to reduce total nitrogen
(TN) discharges by 30% by 2003. All facilities with permitted flow greater than or equal to 0.5 MGD
are receiving a TN limit in this permit cycle. Due to localized impacts, the City received both total
nitrogen and total phosphorus limits in previous permit cycles. This final permit contains the previous
total phosphorus limit, as well as a total nitrogen limit to comply with the point source rule for the
Neuse River Basin.
The City submitted comments on the draft permit dated May 17, 2000, and the following
changes were made to the draft permit:
• The total phosphorus limit presented in the draft permit has been modified to reflect the
correct summer limit of 0.7 mg/1 (as was in the previous permit).
1617 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1617 919 733-5083,extension 510 (fax)919 733-0719
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer [e-mail]

City of Havelock
Page 2 of 2
• Monitoring and/or limit requirements for chromium, lead, and aluminum have been
removed from the final permit. As the City stated, chromium and lead have been recorded
at less than detection levels for greater than 2 years and were intended to be removed from
the draft permit. North Carolina has no water quality standard for aluminum, which is
very pH and hardness dependent, so aluminum monitoring has also been removed from the
permit.
• Because Havelock is a 100% domestic facility, effluent, upstream, and downstream
conductivity monitoring have been removed from the permit.
• The permit expiration date stated in the draft and in this final permit is correct. The
expiration dates for permits in the Neuse River Basin were modified for workload
distribution purposes (also, these permits were originally to be reissued in 1998).
Part 11, Section D.(2) of your permit has been modified to reflect the correct address for the
Division's central files.
Thank you for the update regarding your status as City Manager. You will be the primary
contact for this permit.
If any parts, measurement frequencies, or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty
(30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, Mail Service Center 6714, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such
a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division of
Water Quality. The Division of Water Quality may require modification or revocation and reissuance of
the permit.
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be
required by the Division of Water Quality, the Division of land Resources, the Coastal Area
Management Act, or any other federal or local governmental permit.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Susan Wilson at telephone
number [phone], ext. 510.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED By
BILL REID
Kerr T. Stevens
Enclosures: NPDES Permit No. NCO021253
cc: Washington Regional Office, Water Quality
Point Source Compliance/ Enforcement Unit
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Technical Assistance and Certification
Central Files
(NPDES-Files

Permit No. NC0021253
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Water Quality Commission, and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
City of Havelock
Havelock Wastewater Treatment Plant
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Havelock WWTP
North Jackson Drive
Havelock
Craven County
to receiving waters designated as East Prong Slocum Creek in the Neuse River Basin
in accordance with the discharge limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts 1. II, III, and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective August 1, 2000.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on June 30, 2003.
Signed this day July 12, 2000.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
BILL REID
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
By the Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Cite of Ifavelock
NPDL•S Permit No. NC0021253

Permit No. NCO021253
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
City of Havelock
Havelock Wastewater Treatment Plant
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an emsting 1.9 MGD wastewater treatment facility consisting of
influent screens and grit removal, two stage aeration process with dual first stage
aeration basins, three second stage aeration basins, two secondary clarifiers, tertiary .
filters, ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, post aeration, effluent flow measurement,
residuals holding tank, gravity belt thickeners, and residuals stabilization tanks
located at Havelock WWTP, North Jackson Drive, Havelock, Craven County, and
2. Discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on the
attached map into East Prong Slocum Creek which is classified C-Sw NSW waters in
Neuse River Basin.
City of l lavclocic
NPDLS Permit M. NC0021253

70
✓� / f J
'\ - - - - `, i `Yy ' '.�`1(� .—� Q..r reer • yM�'i'tQ�"M-'-..i
' ,4`` : •s IMP
R A FAN
KY rn
CR '1N
wnnERNEss
a ` •y
G IA E t�- LAND
Ow
Az L
♦/ ♦/ ' ' /L.a".`� Myth '
_ CROA AN GAME LAt D 1 S
FORES �t
' wlyn,�a -Lato. _ _ Po�es,n- .— • Pw �:
-Vpfbsm - _ .WIL E[N55$
I atitimic 34 53'20" Ciub-Basin• 03-04-10 FdC711ty rf
Longi-tude: 76 54'30" Location
Quad #: H31NW
Stream CIa55: C 5w N5W
Receiving-5Srcam: East Prong Slocum Creek City of Havelock WWTP
P_ermittrd Elam 1.9 MGD N00021253

A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge 1.9 MGD of municipal wastewater from outfall 001. Such
discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Limits Monitoring Requirements
Monthly Weekly Daily Measurement Sample Type Sample
Average Average Maximum Frequency Locationl
Flow 1.9 MGD Continuous Recording Influent or
Effluent
BOD,5 day(202C)2 5.0 mg/I 7.5 mg/I Daily Composite Influent&
[April 1 -October 311
Effluent
BOD,5 day(200C)2 10 mg/I 15 mg/I Daily Composite Influent&
[November 1 -March 31] Effluent
Total Suspended Residue2 30.0 mg/1 45.0 mg/l Daily Composite Influent&
Effluent
NH3 as N Aril 1 -October 311 P200/100ml
m 1 Dail Composite Effluent
NH3 as N November 1-March 31in 'I
Dail Composite Effluent
Dissolved Ox en3 Daily Grab Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen 3/Week Grab Upstream&
Downstream
Fecal Coliform(geometric mean 400/100 ml Daily Grab Effluent
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 3/Week Grab Upstream&
Downstream
Total Residual Chlorines 17 µgll 3/Week Grab Effluent
No Effluent Limit(mg/1) Weekly Composite Effluent
Total Nitrogen No Effluent Limit(lb/month) Monthly Calculated Effluent
(NO2-N+NO3-N+TKN)4
21,400 lb/year(Annual Mass loading)6 Annually Calculated Effluent
Total Phosphorus 6 0.7 mg/L(Quarterly Average) Weekly Composite Effluent
Total Phosphorus 6 1.0 mg/L(Quarterly Average) Weekly Composite Effluent
Temperature °C Daily Grab Effluent
Temperature(°C) 3/Week Grab Upstream&
Downstream
Chronic Toxicity7 Quarterly Composite Effluent
Copper Monthly Composite Effluent
Zinc 2/Month Com osite Effluent
H6 6-9 Daily Grab Effluent
(Footnotes on neat page)
City of Havelock
NPDF-S Permit No. NC0021253
l

A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL
(Continued)
Footnotes:
1. Sample locations: See Special Condition A.(6.). Instream monitoring is provisionally
waived in light of the permittee's participation in the Lower Neuse Basin Association.
Instream monitoring shall be conducted as stated in this permit should the permittee
end its participation in the Associaton.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not
exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/l.
4. See Special Condition A.(2.), Total Nitrogen Monitoring.
5. The annual mass loading limit for total nitrogen is based on the Neuse Nutrient Management
Strategy and has replaced the concentration based limit in the previous permit.
6. The quarterly average for total phosphorus shall be the average of composite samples collected
weekly during the calendar quarter (January-March, April-June, July-September, October-
December).
7. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia dubia) P/F at 90%: January, April, July, and October [see
Special Condition A.(3)]. Toxicity monitoring shall coincide with any metals and cyanide
monitoring, if required.
8. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall
be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
9. Total residual chlorine monitoring and limit is required only if chlorine is used as a
disinfectant. Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection is currently the primary means of disinfection.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
City of Havelock
NPD6;S Permit No. NC0021253

A. (2.) TOTAL NITROGEN MONITORING
The Permittee shall calculate the annual mass loading of total nitrogen as the sum of monthly
loadings, according to the following equations:
(1) Monthly Mass Loading (1b/mo) = TN a 9 a 8.34
where:
TN = the average total nitrogen concentration (mg/L) of the composite
samples collected during the month
Q = the total wastewater flow discharged during the month (MG/month)
8.34 = conversion factor, from (mg/L x MG) to pounds
(2) Annual Mass Loading (lb/yr) _ (Monthly Mass Loadings) for the calendar year
The Permittee shall report the total nitrogen concentration for each sample and the
monthly mass loading in the appropriate self-monitoring report and the annual mass
loading of total nitrogen in the December self-monitoring report for the year.
The Permittee has chosen not to join the group compliance association. The annual mass
load limit has replaced the concentration based limit given in the previous permit.
Footnote:
Neuse River Basin - Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy: Wastewater
Discharge Requirements (15A NCAC 2B. 0234).
A. (3.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (9RTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 90%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterlu monitoring using test procedures
outlined in the "North Carolina Ceriodophnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised
February 1998, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent
Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised-February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be
performed during the months of January, April, July, and October. Effluent sampling for this
testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment
processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV
below the permit limit, then multiple-concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in
each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent
Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised-February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of
the highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the
lowest concentration that does have'a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The
definition of"detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical
methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test
Procedure" (Revised-February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the
parameter code TGP313 for the pass/fail results and THP313 for the Chronic Value. Additionally,
DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Ciiv of Havdock
NPDES Permit No. NC0021253

A. (3.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT ($RTRLY), continued
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Tmdcity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no
later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
and all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or
approved designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be
measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring
is required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity
(AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the
month/year of the report with the notation of"No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The
report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monitoring will be required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re-
opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate
environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up
testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial
monitoring.
City of Havelock
NPDES Permit Vo NCO021253

PART I
Section B. Schedule of Compliance
1. The permittee shall comply with Final Effluent Limitations specified for discharges in
accordance with the following schedule:
Permittee shall comply with Final Effluent Limitations by the effective date of the permit
unless specified below.
2. Permittee shall at all times provide the operation and maintenance necessary to operate the
existing facilities at optimum efficiency.
3. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the above schedule of
compliance, the permittee shall submit either a report of progress or, in the case of specific
actions being required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or noncompliance.
In the latter case, the notice shall include the cause of noncompliance, any remedial actions
taken, and the probability of meeting the next schedule requirements.

Part II
Page 1 of 14
PART II
STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SECTION A. DEFINITIONS
1. Permit Issuing Authority
The Director of the Division of Water Quality.
2. DEM or -the Division-
Means the Division of Water Quality, Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
3. EMC
Used herein means the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission.
4. Act or "the Act"
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, as amended,
33 USC 1251, et. seq.
5. Mass/Day Measurements
a. The "monthly average discharge" is defined as the total mass of all daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during a calendar month on which daily discharges are
sampled and measured, divided by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or
measured during such month. It is therefore, an arithmetic mean found by adding the
weights of the pollutant found each day of the month and then dividing this sum by the
number of days the tests were reported. The limitation is identified as "Monthly
Average" in Part I of the permit.
b. The "weekly average discharge" is defined as the total mass of all daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during the calendar week (Sunday - Saturday) on which
daily discharges are sampled and measured, divided by the number of daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during such week. It is, therefore, an arithmetic mean found
by adding the weights of pollutants found each day of the week and then dividing this
sum by the number of days the tests were reported. This limitation is identified as
'Weekly Average" in Part I of the permit.
c. The "maximum daily discharge" is the total mass (weight) of a pollutant discharged
during a calendar day. If only one sample is taken during any calendar day the weight
of pollutant calculated from it is the "maximum daily discharge." This limitation is
identified as "Daily Maximum," in Part I of the permit.
d. The "average annual discharge" is defined as the total mass of all daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during the calendar year on which daily discharges are
sampled and measured, divided by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or
measured during such year. It is, therefore, an arithmetic mean found by adding the
weights of pollutants found each day of the year and then dividing this sum by the
number of days the tests were reported. This limitation is defined as "Annual Average"
in Part I of the permit.

Part II
Page 2 of 14
6. Concentration Measurement
a. The "average monthly concentration," other than for fecal colifonn bacteria, is the sum
of the concentrations of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a
calendar month on which daily discharges are sampled and measured, divided by the
number of daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such month (arithmetic
mean of the daily concentration values). The daily concentration value is equal to the
concentration of a composite sample or in the case of grab samples is the arithmetic
mean (weighted by flow value) of all the samples collected during that calendar day.
The average monthly count for fecal coliform bacteria is the geometric mean of the
counts for samples collected during a calendar month. This limitation is identified as
"Monthly Average" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit.
b. The "average weekly concentration," other than for fecal coliform bacteria, is the sum of
the concentrations of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar
week (Sunday/Saturday) on which daily discharges are sampled and measured divided
by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such week
(arithmetic mean of the daily concentration values). The daily concentration value is
equal to the concentration of a composite sample or in the case of grab samples is the
arithmetic mean (weighted by flow value) of all the samples collected during that
calendar day. The average weekly count for fecal coliform bacteria is the geometric
mean of the counts for samples collected during a calendar week. This limitation is
identified as 'Weekly Average" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit.
c. The 'maximum daily concentration" is the concentration of a pollutant discharge during
a calendar day. If only one sample is taken during any calendar day the concentration
of pollutant calculated from it is the "Maximum Daily Concentration". It is identified as
"Daily Maximum" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit.
d. The "average annual concentration," other than for fecal coliform bacteria, is the sum of
the concentrations of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar
year on which daily discharges are sampled and measured divided by the number of
daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such year (arithmetic mean of the
daily concentration values). The daily concentration value is equal to the concentration
of a composite sample or in the case of grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted
by flow value) of all the samples collected during that calendar day . The average yearly
count for fecal coliform bacteria is the geometric mean of the counts for samples
collected during a calendar year. This limitation is identified as "Annual Average" under
"Other Limits" in Part I of the permit.
e. The "daily average concentration" (for dissolved oxygen) is the minimum allowable
amount of dissolved oxygen required to be available in the effluent prior to discharge
averaged over a calendar day. If only one dissolved oxygen sample is taken over a
calendar day, the sample is considered to be the "daily average concentration" for the
discharge. It is identified as "daily average" in the text of Part I.
f. The "quarterly average concentration" is the average of all samples taken over a
calendar quarter. It is identified as "Quarterly Average Limitation" in the text of Part I
of the permit.
g. A calendar quarter is defined as one of the following distinct periods: January through
March, April through June, July through September, and October through December.

Part II
Page 3 of 14
7. Other Measurements
a. Flow, (MGD): The flow limit expressed in this permit is the 24 hours average flow,
averaged monthly. It is determined as the arithmetic mean of the total daily flows
recorded during the calendar month.
b. An "instantaneous flow measurement' is a measure of flow taken at the time of
sampling, when both the sample and flow will be representative of the total discharge.
c. A "continuous flow measurement' is a measure of discharge flow from the facility which
occurs continually without interruption throughout the operating hours of the facility.
Flow shall be monitored continually except for the infrequent times when there may be
no flow or for infrequent maintenance activities on the flow device.
8. Types of Samples
a. Composite Sample: A composite sample shall consist of:
(1) a series of grab samples collected at equal time intervals over a 24 hour period of
discharge and combined proportional to the rate of flow measured at the time of
individual sample collection, or
(2) a series of grab samples of equal volume collected over a 24 hour period with the
time intervals between samples determined by a preset number of gallons passing
the sampling point. Flow measurement between sample intervals shall be
determined by use of a flow recorder and totalizer, and the present gallon interval
between sample collection fixed at no greater than 1/24 of the expected total daily
flow at the treatment system, or
(3) a single, continuous sample collected over a 24 hour period proportional to the rate
of flow.
In accordance with (1) above, the time interval between influent grab samples shall be
no greater than once per hour, and the time interval between effluent grab samples
shall be no greater than once per hour except at wastewater treatment systems having a
detention time of greater than 24 hours. In such cases, effluent grab samples may be
collected at time intervals evenly spaced over the 24 hour period which are equal in
number of hours to the detention time of the system in number of days. However, in no
case may the time interval between effluent grab samples be greater than six (6) hours
nor the number of samples less than four (4) during a 24 hour sampling period.
b. Grab Sample: Grab samples are individual samples collected over a period of time not
exceeding.15 minutes; the grab sample can be taken manually. Grab samples must be
representative of the discharge or the receiving waters.
9. Calculation of Means
a Arithmetic Mean: The arithmetic mean of any set of values is the summation of the
individual values divided by the number of individual values.
b. Geometric Mean: The geometric mean of any set of values is the Nth root of the product
of the individual values where N is equal to the number of individual values. The
geometric mean is equivalent to the antilog of the arithmetic mean of the logarithms of
the individual values. For purposes of calculating the geometric mean, values of zero (0)
shall be considered to be one (1).
c. Weighted by Flow Value: Weighted by flow value means the summation of each
concentration times its respective flow divided by the summation of the respective flows.

Part II
Page 4 of 14
10. Calendar Day
A calendar day is defined as the period from midnight of one day until midnight of the next
day. However, for purposes of this permit, any consecutive 24-hour period that reasonably
represents the calendar day may be used for sampling.
11. Hazardous Substance
A hazardous substance means any substance designated under 40 CFR Part 116 pursuant
to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
12. Toxic Pollutant
A toxic pollutant is any pollutant listed as toxic under Section 307(a)(1) of the Clean Water
Act.
SECTION B. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Duty to Comply
The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance
constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is grounds for enforcement action: for
permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or denial of a permit
renewal application.
a. The permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under
section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants and with standards for sewage
sludge use or disposal established under section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act within
the time provided in the regulations that establish these standards or prohibitions or
standards for sewage sludge use or disposal, even if the permit has not yet been
modified to incorporate the requirement.
b. The Clean Water Act provides that any person who violates a permit condition is subject
to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation. Any person who
negligently violates any permit condition is subject to criminal penalties of $2,500 to
$25,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both. Any
person who knowingly violates permit conditions is subject to criminal penalties of
$5,000 to $50,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or
both. Also, any person who violates a permit condition may be assessed an
administrative penalty not to exceed $10,000 per violation with the maximum amount
not to exceed $125,000. [Ref: Section 309 of the Federal Act 33 U.S.C. 1319 and 40
CFR 122.41 (a)]
c. Under state law, a civil penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per
violation may be assessed against any person who violates or fails to act in accordance
with the terms, conditions, or requirements of a permit. [Ref: North Carolina General
Statutes § 143-215.6A]
d. Any person may be assessed an administrative penalty by the Administrator for
violating section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, or any permit
condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under
section 402 of the Act. Administrative penalties for Class I violations are not to exceed
$10,000 per violation, with the maximum amount of any Class I penalty assessed not to
exceed $25,000. Penalties for Class Il violations are not to exceed $10,000 per day for
each day during which the violation continues, with the maximum amount of any Class
11 penalty not to exceed $125,000.

Part II
Page 5 of 14
2. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge
use or disposal in violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely
affecting human health or the environment.
3. Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on 'Bypassing' (Part II, C-4) and 'Power Failures"
(Part 11, C-7), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties for noncompliance pursuant to NCGS 143-215.3.
143-215.6 or Section 309 of the Federal Act, 33 USC 1319. Furthermore, the permittee is
responsible for consequential damages, such as fish kills, even though the responsibility for
effective compliance may be temporarily suspended.
4. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or
relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee
is or may be subject to under NCGS 143-215.75 et seq. or Section 311 of the Federal Act, 33
USG 1321. Furthermore, the permittee is responsible for consequential damages, such as
fish kills, even though the responsibility for effective compliance may be temporarily
suspended.
5. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal
property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or
anv invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or
regulations.
6. Onshore or Offshore Construction
This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any onshore or offshore
physical structures or facilities or the undertaking of any work in any navigable waters.
7. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit, or the
application of any provision of this permit to any circumstances, is held invalid, the
application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit,
shall not be affected thereby.
8. Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the Permit Issuing Authority, within a reasonable time, any
information which the Permit Issuing Authority may request to determine whether cause
exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit or to determine
compliance with this permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Permit Issuing
Authority upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.
9. Duty to Reapply
If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the expiration
date of this permit, the permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit.

Part II
Page 6 of 14
10. Expiration of Permit
The permittee is not authorized to discharge after the expiration date. In order to receive
automatic authorization to discharge beyond the expiration date, the permittee shall submit
such information, forms, and fees as are required by the agency authorized to issue permits
no later than 180 days prior to the expiration date. Any permittee that has not requested
renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration, or any permittee that does not have a permit
after the expiration and has not requested renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration, will
subject the permittee to enforcement procedures as provided in NCGS 143-215.6 and 33
USC 1251 et. seq.
11. Signatory Requirements
All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority shall be
signed and certified.
a. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
(1) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this
Section, a responsible corporate officer means: (a) a president, secretary, treasurer
or vice president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or
any other person who performs similar policy or decision malting functions for the
corporation, or (b) the manager of one or more manufacturing production or
operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or having gross annual sales
or expenditures exceeding 25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to
sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with
corporate procedures.
(2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor,
respectively; or
(3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: by either a principal
executive officer or ranking elected official.
b. All reports required by the permit and other information requested by the Permit
Issuing Authority shall be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized
representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if:
(1) The authorization is made in writing by a person described above;
(2) The authorization specified either an individual or a position having responsibility for
the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of
plant manager, operator of a well or well field, superintendent, a position of
equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility
for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may
thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position.);
and
(3) The written authorization is submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority.
c. Certification. Any person signing a document under paragraphs a. or b. of this section
shall make the following certification:
"I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on
my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly
responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of
my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines
and imprisonment for knowing violations."

Part II
Page 7 of 14
12. Permit Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The filing of a
request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or
termination, or a notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does not
stay any permit condition.
13. Permit Modification, Revocation and Reissuance, or Termination
The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the permit issuing authority from reopening
and modifying the permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit as
allowed by the laws, rules, and regulations contained in Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Parts 122 and 123; Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code,
Subchapter 2H .0100; and North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 et. al.
14. Previous Permits
All previous National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits issued to this facility,
whether for operation or discharge, are hereby revoked by issuance of this permit. (The
exclusive authority to operate this facility arises under this permit. The authority to
operate the facility under previously issued permits bearing this number is no longer
effective. I The conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions of this permit authorizing
discharge under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System govern discharges
from this facility.
SECTION C. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROLS
1. Certified Operator
Pursuant to Chapter 90A-44 of North Carolina General Statutes, and upon classification of
the facility by the Certification Commission, the permittee shall employ a certified
wastewater treatment plant operator in responsible charge (ORC) of the wastewater
treatment facilities. Such operator must hold a certification of the grade equivalent to or
greater than the classification assigned to the wastewater treatment facilities by the
Certification Commission. The permittee must also employ a certified back-up operator of
the appropriate type and any grade to comply with the conditions of Title 15A, Chapter 8A
.0202. The ORC of the facility must visit each Class I facility at least weekly and each Class
1I, ill, and IV facility at least daily, excluding weekends and holidays, and must properly
manage and document daily operation and maintenance of the facility and must comply
with all other conditions of Title 15A, Chapter 8A .0202. Once the facility is classified, the
permittee shall submit a letter to the Certification Commission which designates the
operator in responsible charge within thirty days after the wastewater treatment facilities
are 50% complete.
2. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of
treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the
permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and
maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance
procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or
similar systems which are installed by a permittee only when the operation is necessary to
achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit.

Part II
Page 8 of 14
3. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been
necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the
condition of this permit.
4. BVpassina of Treatment Facilities
a. Definitions
(1) "Bypass" means the known diversion of waste streams from any portion of a
treatment facility including the collection system, which is not a designed or
established or operating mode for the facility.
(2) "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage
to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial
and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur
in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss
caused by delays in production.
b. Bypass not exceeding limitations.
The permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations
to be exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient
operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions of Paragraphs c. and d. of
this section.
c. Notice
(1) Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it
shall submit prior notice, if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass:
including an evaluation of the anticipated quality and affect of the bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass
as required in Part II, E. 6. of this permit. (24 hour notice).
d. Prohibition of Bypass
(1) Bypass is prohibited and the Permit Issuing Authority may take enforcement action
against a permittee for bypass, unless:
(A) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property
damage;
(B) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary
treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes or maintenance during normal
periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate backup
equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering
judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment
downtime or preventive maintenance; and
(C) The permittee submitted notices as required under Paragraph c. of this section.
(2) The Permit Issuing Authority may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering
its adverse affects, if the Permit Issuing Authority determines that it will meet the
three conditions listed above in Paragraph d. (1) of this section.

Part 11
Page 9 of 14
5. Upsets
a. Definition.
"Upset " means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary
noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations because of factors
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include
noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment
facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or
improper operation.
b. Effect of an upset.
An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance
with such technology based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of paragraph
c. of this condition are met. No determination made during administrative review of
claims that noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an action for
noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to judicial review.
c. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset.
A permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate,
through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence
that:
(1) An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset;
(2) The permittee facility was at the time being properly operated; and
(3) The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in Part 11, E. 6. (b) (B) of this
permit.
(4) The permittee complied with any remedial measures required under Part II, B. 2. of
this permit.
d. Burden of proof.
In any enforcement proceeding the permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an
upset has the burden of proof.
6. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or
control of wastewaters shall be utilized/disposed of in accordance with NCGS 143-215.1 and
in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering waters of
the State or navigable waters of the United States. The permittee shall comply with all
existing federal regulations governing the disposal of sewage sludge. Upon promulgation of
40 CFR Part 503, any permit issued by the Permit Issuing Authority for the
utilization/disposal of sludge may be reopened and modified, or revoked and reissued, to
incorporate applicable requirements at 40 CFR Part 503. The permittee shall comply with
applicable 40 CFR Part 503 Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge (when
promulgated) within the time provided in the regulation, even if the permit is not modified
to incorporate the requirement. The permittee shall notify the Permit Issuing Authority of
any significant change in its sludge use or disposal practices.
7. Power Failures
The permittee is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards as required by DEM
Regulation, Title 15A, North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H, .0124 Reliability,
to prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastes during electrical power

Part II
Page 10 of 14
failures either by means of alternate power sources, standby generators or retention of
inadequately treated effluent.
SECTION D. MONITORING AND RECORDS
I. Representative Sampling
Samples collected and measurements taken, as required herein, shall be characteristic of
the volume and nature of the permitted discharge. Samples collected at a frequency less
than daily shall be taken on a day and time that is characteristic of the discharge over the
entire period which the sample represents. All samples shall be taken at the monitoring
points specified in this permit and; unless otherwise specified, before the effluent joins or is
diluted by any other wastestream, body of water, or substance. Monitoring points shall not
be changed without notification to and the approval of the Permit Issuing Authority.
2. Reporting
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each
month and reported on a monthly Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Form (DEM No. MR
1, 1.1, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the Director, DEM, postmarked no later than
the 30th day following the completed reporting period.
The first DMR is due on the last day of the month following the issuance of the permit or in
the case of a new facility, on the last day of the month following the commencement of
discharge. Duplicate signed copies of these, and all other reports required herein, shall be
submitted to the following address:
Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
3. Flow Measurements
Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with accepted scientific
practices shall be selected and used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of measurements
of the volume of monitored discharges. The devices shall be installed, calibrated and
maintained to ensure that the accuracy of the measurements are consistent with the
accepted capability of that type of device. Devices selected shall be capable of measuring
flows with a maximum deviation of less than + 10% from the true discharge rates
throughout the range of erected discharge volumes. Once-through condenser cooling
water flow which is monitored by pump logs, or pump hour meters as specified in Part I of
this permit and based on the manufacturer's pump curves shall not be subject to this
requirement.
4. Test Procedures
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to the EMC regulations
published pursuant to NCGS 143-215.63 et. seq, the Water and Air Quality Reporting Acts,
and to regulations published pursuant to Section 304(g), 33 USC 1314, of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as Amended, and Regulation 40 CFR 136; or in the case of
sludge use or disposal, approved under 40 CFR 136, unless otherwise specified in 40 CFR
503, unless other test procedures have been specified in this permit.
To meet the intent of the monitoring required by this permit, all test procedures must
produce minimum detection and reporting levels that are below the permit discharge
requirements and all data generated must be reported down to the minimum detection or

Part II
Page 11 of 14
lower reporting level of the procedure. If no approved methods are determined capable of
achieving minimum detection and reporting levels below permit discharge requirements,
then the most sensitive (method with the lowest possible detection and reporting level)
approved method must be used.
5. Penalties for Tamperin s
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly
renders inaccurate, any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this
permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation,
or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both. If a conviction of
a person is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person under this
paragraph, punishment is a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment of not more than 4 years, or both.
6. Records Retention
Except for records of monitoring information required by this permit related to the
permittee's sewage sludge use and disposal activities, which shall be retained for a period of
at least five years (or longer as required by 40 CFR 503), the permittee shall retain records
of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records and all
original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all
reports required by this permit, for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the sample,
measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of the
Director at any time.
7. Recording Results
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the
permittee shall record the following information:
a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements:
c. The date(s) analyses were performed;
d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of such analyses.
8. Inspection and Entry
The permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative (including an
authorized contractor acting as a representative of the Director), upon the presentation of
credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to;
a. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or
conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the
conditions of this permit;
c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control
equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit; and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit compliance
or as otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act, any substances or parameters at
any location.

Part H
Page 12 of 14
SECTION E. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. Change in Discharge
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this
permit. The discharge of any pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than or at a
level in excess of that authorized shall constitute a violation of the permit.
2. Planned Changes
The permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned physical
alterations or additions to the permitted facility. Notice is required only when:
a. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for
determining whether a facility is a new source in 40 CFR Part 122.29 (b): or
b. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity
of pollutants discharged. This notification applies to pollutants which are subject
neither to effluent limitations in the permit, nor to notification requirements under 40
CFR Part 122.42 (a) (1).
c. The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the permittee's sludge use or
disposal practices, and such alternation, addition or change may justify the application
of permit conditions that are different from or absent in the existing permit, including
notification of additional use or disposal sites not reported during the permit application
process or not reported pursuant to an approved land application plan.
3. Anticipated Noncompliance
The permittee shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned changes in the
permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
4. Transfers
This permit is not transferable to any person except after notice to the Director. The
Director may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permittee and
incorporate such other requirements as may be necessary under the Clean Water Act.
5. Monitoring Reports
Monitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified elsewhere in this permit.
a. Monitoring results must be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) (See Part
II. D. 2 of this permit) or forms provided by the Director for reporting results of
monitoring of sludge use or disposal practices.
b. If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by the permit,
using test procedures specified in Part II, D. 4. of this permit or in the case of sludge
use or disposal, approved under 40 CFR 503, or as specified in this permit, the results
of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data
submitted in the DMR.
c. Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an
arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified by the Director in the permit.
6. Twenty-four Hour Reporting

Part II
Page 13 of 14
a. The permittee shall report to the central office or the appropriate regional office any
noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment. Any information shall
be provided orally within 24 hours from the time the permittee became aware of the
circumstances. A written submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the time
the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission shall
contain a description of the noncompliance, and its cause; the period of noncompliance,
including exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the
anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce,
eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
b. The following shall be included as information which must be reported within 24 hours
under this paragraph:
(1) Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit.
(2) Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit.
(3) Violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed by
the Director in the permit to be reported within 24 hours.
c. The Director may waive the written report on a case-by-case basis for reports under
paragraph b. above of this condition if the oral report has been received within 24
hours.
7. Other Noncompliance
The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under Part II. E. 5
and 6. of this permit at the time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall
contain the information listed in Part II. E. 6. of this permit.
8. Other Information
Where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit
application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or in any report to
the Director, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.
9. Noncompliance Notification
The permittee shall report by telephone to either the central office or the appropriate
regional office of the Division as soon as possible, but in no case more than 24 hours or on
the next working day following the occurrence or first knowledge of the occurrence of any of
the following:
a. Any occurrence at the water pollution control facility which results in the discharge of
significant amounts of wastes which are abnormal in quantity or characteristic, such as
the dumping of the contents of a sludge digester; the known passage of a slug of
hazardous substance through the facility; or any other unusual circumstances.
b. Any process unit failure, due to known or unknown reasons, that render the facility
incapable of adequate wastewater treatment such as mechanical or electrical failures of
pumps, aerators, compressors, etc.
c. Any failure of a pumping station, sewer line, or treatment facility resulting in a by-pass
directly to receiving waters without treatment of all or any portion of the influent to
such station or facility.
Persons reporting such occurrences by telephone shall also file a written report in letter
form within 5 days following first knowledge of the occurrence.

Part II
Page 14 of 14
10. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under NCGS 143-215.3(a)(2) or Section 308 of
the Federal Act, 33 USC 1318, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms shall be
available for public inspection at the offices of the Division of Water Quality. As required by
the Act, effluent data shall not be considered confidential. Knowingly making any false
statement on any such report may result in the imposition of criminal penalties as provided
for in NCGS 143-215.1(b)(2) or in Section 309 of the Federal Act.
11. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement,
representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to be
maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or
noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per
violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both.

PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
A Requirements for Control of Pollutants Attributable to Industrial Users
1. Effluent limitations are listed in Part I of this permit. Other pollutants attributable to inputs from industries
using the municipal system may be present in the permittee's discharge. At such time as sufficient information
becomes available to establish limitations for such pollutants, this permit may be revised to specify effluent
limitations for any or all of such other pollutants in accordance with best practicable technology or water
quahtp standards.
2. Under no circumstances shall the permittee allow introduction of the following wastes in the waste treatment
system:
a. Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTIK/, including, but not limited to,
wastestreams with a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 Degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees centigrade
using the test methods specified in ATSUl standards D-93-79, D-93-80, or D-3278 (incorporated by
reference, see 40 CFR 260.11). This prohibition does not apply to any aqueous solution containing less
than 24 percent alcohol by volume which would otherwise be a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.21 by
virtue of having a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees centigrade;
b. Wastes which wiH cause corrosive structural damage to treatment works, and in no case discharges with
pH less than 5.0 standard units unless the system is specifically designed to accommodate such discharges;
C. Solid or viscous substances in amounts which cause obstructions to the flow in sewers or interference with
the proper operation of the treatment works;
d. Wastewaters at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which will cause an inhibition or disruption of
the POTVU,its treatment processes,operation,or sludge use and disposal;
e. Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the treatment works, resulting in interference but
in no case heat in such quantities that the temperature at the treatment works influent exceeds 40°C
(104°F)unless the works are designed to accommodate such heat;
f. Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts that will cause
interference or pass through;
g. Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POT%X'in quantity that
may cause acute worker health and safety problems;
h. Any trucked or hauled pollutants,except at discharge points designated by the POTIC'.
3. With regard to the effluent requirements listed in Part I of this permit,it map be necessary for the permittee to
supplement the requirements of the Federal Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR, Part 403) to ensure compliance
by the permittee with all applicable effluent limitations. Such actions by the permittee may be necessary
regarding some or all of the industries discharging to the municipal system.
4. The permittee shall require any industrial discharges into the permitted system to meet Federal Pretreatment
Standards promulgated in response to Section 307(b) of the Act. Prior to accepting wastewater from any
significant industrial user,the permittee shall either develop and submit to the Division a Pretreatment Program
for approval per 15 NCAC 2H.0907(a)or modify an existing Pretreatment Program per 15 NCAC 2H.0907(b).
5. This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and reissued, to incorporate or modify an approved
PO'1\C' Pretreatment Program or to include a compliance schedule for the development of a POTW
Pretreatment Program as required under Section 402(b)(8) of the Clean Water Act and implementing
regulations or by the requirements of the approved State pretreatment program,as appropriate.

PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
B. Construction
No construction of wastewater treatment facilities or additions to add to the plants treatment capacity
(or to change the type of process utilized at the treatment plant) shall begin until Final Plans and
Specifications have been submitted to the Division of Water Quality and written approval and an
Authorization to Construct has been issued.
C. Groundwater Donitoring
The permittee shall, upon written notice from the Director of the Division of Water Quality, conduct
groundwater monitoring as may be required to determine the compliance of this NPDES permitted
facility with the current groundwater standards.
D. Publicly Owned Treatment Works
All POTIC's must provide adequate notice to the Director of the following:
1. Am- new introduction of pollutants into the POTIC' from an indirect discharger which would be subject to
section 301 or 306 of C%X'A if it were directly discharging those pollutants;and
2. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into that POTW by a source
introducing pollutants into the POTI\'at the time of issuance of the permit.
3. For purposes of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on (1) the quality and quantity of
effluent introduced into the POW', and (2) any anticipated impact of the change on the quantity or quality of
effluent to be discharged from the POTIti'.
E. Requirement to Continuafl� Evaluate Alternatives to Wastewater Discharges
The pertttee shall continually evaluate all wastewater disposal alternatives and pursue the most
environmentally sound alternative of the reasonably cost effective alternatives. If the facilit• is in
substantial non-comphance with the terms and conditions of the NPDES permit or governing rules,
regulations or laws, the permittee shall submit a report in such form and detail as required by the
Division evaluating these alternatives and a plan of action within sixty (60) days of notification by the
Division.

PART IV
ANNUAL ADMINISTERING AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING FEE
REQUIREMENTS
A. The permittee must pay the annual administering and compliance monitoring
fee within 30 (thirty) days after being billed by the Division. Failure to pay the
fee in a timely manner in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0105(b)(4) may cause
this Division to initiate action to revoke the permit.

g pORT G,R
f O`NS
CITY OF HAVELOCK
Post Office Drawer 368
Havelock, N.C. 28532
RrDRwTCD I51
May 17, 2000 p d
MAY 19 2000 D
Mr. David A. Goodrich
NCDENR ~ E"'R - WATER 011ALITY
Division of Water Quality ro T Sr "rcE BRAhcR
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Subject: Draft NPDES Permit
Havelock Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit Number NC0021253
Craven County
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
The City of Havelock has received the draft NPDES permit for the Havelock Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The staff offers the following comments regarding the proposed pen-nit:
• The City appreciates the re-evaluation of the CBOD5 limit and substitution of a HODS
limit of 5 mg/I and 10 mg/I (summer and winter). This will provide the treatment plant
staff more flexibility in optimizing our denitrification process which utilizes methanol as
a carbon source. ✓
• The Total Phosphorus limit in Section A.(1.) contains a typographical error as confirmed
in a telephone conversation with Susan Wilson. The summer limit should read 0.7 mg/1
instead of 0.4 mg/l. yE5 - pA4�,vlo u.Sr; P6riM(T /AJD/Cl Ep A VL
• Chromium and lead monitoring were included in the draft permit. We believe that the
NPDES Unit staff had planned to remove the requirement for those two monthly analyses
since Havelock has results for five years or more indicating that effluent chromium and
lead values are below detectable levels. It was also mentioned that the monitoring
requirement for aluminum was also being removed from many permits since there is no
EPA standard nor action level for aluminum. The City requests that the NPDES Unit
consider removing the requirements for monthly monitoring of chromium, lead, and
aluminum. ycs _ xcoaN Ly t,.J a q>eo t v DRq Fr (a.eFce- To {•err S4eer)
Phone [phone] t� parted onrocy foe paper Fax [phone]

• The treatment plant staff also noticed that effluent conductivity monitoring has been
added to the permit. Our previous permit contained a conductivity monitoring
requirement for only upstream and downstream locations. Since issuance of our previous
permit, the City has closed the on-site laboratory, and we are sending our NPDES
analyses to Environment 1, Inc., a contract laboratory in Greenville, N.C. Please clarify
if effluent conductivity was intentionally included. If so, is the holding time !,neater than
six hours so that the sample will have time to reach the contract laboratory? /f not, the ) GW-11-
City requests that the NPDES Unit consider removing the requirement for effluent }
conductivity monitoring. (q14, IF No V U s rE�i> Ali 303�
• The permit expiration date provided in the draft is June 30,2003. The City's permit has
been on a five year renewal cycle with the previous permit expiring on March 31, 1999.
c�1a�4 cn foe
Has the cycle changed in order to correspond with the time frame for attaining a 30% woa��oAO
reduction in total nitrogen, or should the expiration date be March 31, 2004? atr so �s
• In Section D.(2.), the mailing address for"Central Files" is listed as "Post Office Box
P 29535." Is this address still functional, or should reports be mailed using the Mail 41
(yRR=
Service Center?
• The City of Havelock also has a new City Manager. Thomas A. Phillips has replaced
Joseph R. Huffman.
Thank you for both the opportunity to review the draft NPDES permit and for the time
your staff took to visit our facility and talk with our staff. We look forward to your response
regarding this review. If you have questions regarding our comments, please do not hesitate to
contact me at [phone] or(252) 444-6421.
Sincerely,
Susan Rexrode
Director of Public Utilities
cc: Thomas Phillips
Susan Wilson

Affidavit of Publication
SUN-JOURNAL
.P,Ua1-IC NOTICE;_ *
r'�°sl New earn, N.C. 1 J
STATE OF E AL NA; ErIT�
ENVIRONM before me. a Notary Public
COMMISSIOWNPDE CENT Personally appealed
,1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER`'
RALEIGH.NC 27899 tfi17 ` ' Of the County of Craven. State of North Carolina.
NOTIFICATION OF INTEWATER 1 ••,,,• QD».
A NPDES WAST J....... ... .. ..2O
.ISSUE ,) tr,}-.^_.rZ on this the .... +.
:PERMIT
' . .......»
'On tt*bass cl Morough Stan review ...........
a NC General statute'# being duly sworn. states
,� 2�Pua law 92-`5W and tithe`) of the Sun Journal.
lawlul_,standards and�_regulauon'1
that the notice ant ed
.the North Caroliria-Envitonmehtal;� •
b sue a eNanonalCoj
P ubrrt D s) n�,
stem (DPharge = •• ....... ................
.»........
... ........
.Elimination SY B grnrh,0.1ha�¢ U 1� I ,,,,,,,
•
ll��h.. .........................
;wastewater discharg P 'attached,;, l -'•"' "•
hste2 orr the._ ........... ..• -
person(s) ,.,—.r.....�t=^"- ....
'pages enectwe 45 days from ts�
`puNlc date of+this ra e .................................................
t{. iNCO 1253' ..........................61, ....
CaYd�ebck
4Treat rent Plant P O Drawer rii,,
29532 has applietl ...................................................».....
...........
,Ior ltlock,'It of which is attached hereto,
bfor aPerPllt.renewel for"etactlRX, a flue coDY
'located iPcreYenCw^h'd���"� appeared in the Sun Journal, a newspaper
Sloem Creek ted Bin the NeusepRive
13es,n•�Currant,BOOS,ammonia, published in the City of New Bern. County o
and diaagtyed.oxr9en are:Waler Craven. State of North Carolina.
quality hinnetl lThis1 nt�hlssPo�^� ft/'�1 rn�•- ••••••-,••,,,,a week for
anedhlwre al"110fls d. Id• .......-!S"' •• ••••"'
of the receNing stream ,
l ••,,,,,....weeks. on the following dates:
x .,rumen ;t,gar 2QQQ..
IWdtten comments regertling the
proposed'Permn wdi be accepted ................ ..................
b sh dates
}Brno 3o dare Boer the w_ 2,4.RR..
f d tits notice An corrvnents�"'ed I �!�/
poor to that date are corsWeretl int �I 4..•*r'••. •.•..••..•....•.•.•
arNn9t """•"' 2000
the final-litbr I--I-,
s'a,- _ _
.the Proposed Permit'The Director!
lot the NC DiJisign of WaierOuel'ky ........................................................ 2000
I i t a cide to npld a PubIE meeting .........
'tor the Proposed permit should th r
en
ruhcard degeef ...................................................... .
%DMsion receive a is 2.QRR..
af,puMk interest;,^"k� ,,:.�1,•`
5 ........................................................ 2000
tCoPies nl the dreH permit and othert
Esupportirig Inlortnanoe on hie used i .......................................................
+to'determine wrdieons Present In tits} 24RR..
draftpermitare arena I a o'�t�yyyy .•.
and.PBYment of the Cos, ........................................................
raprotlucaon' all coI to ..........
'requests togin!1q- ion to the - lit
� d Watei Oua!ttY at the abo+e._, ................................................
�eddress or call Ms Chtlsoe Jackson' .......:..........
........
a([phone];extension 538,1, ,...,,,•..................
please Include theNPDES Pee ya ?he iJew e'efn Sun Journal
number (attached)
�comiriunk"lion Interested persons,°
Oualiry at 512 N S211ebury"lie telr
2000
rho of a ooam`'�`a 5�00 tl°. Subscribed and swon_ t1 it is...... ......
da r of... ,reytew miormatlonon
........
• •••• Notary Public
3-15-2903

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0021253, Havelock WWTP
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name: Citv of Havelock/ Havelock WWTP
Applicant Address: P.O. Drawer 368, Havelock, NC 28532
Facility Address: North Jackson Drive
Permitted Flow 1.9 MGD
'type of Waste: 100% Domestic (inactive pretreatment program)
Facility/Permit Status: Renewal
County: Craven
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream: East Prong Regional Office: WaRO
Slocum Creek
Stream Classification: C-Sw NSW Quad H31NW
Sl: 27-112-1-1 Havelock
303(d) Listed?: NO Permit Writer: S. Wilson
Subbasin: 030410 Date: A ri12.4, 2
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs) 0/tidally
influenced
Winter 7Q10 (cfs): i =.
Average Flow (cfs):
IWC (%): 100
Primary SIC Code: 4952
SUMMARY
Havelock operates a 1.9 MGD wastewater treatment facility that discharges into the East Prong
of Slocum Creek in the Neuse River Basin. From the mid 80's to early 90's, Slocum Creek
experienced fish kills and high algal productivity (which resulted in depressed DOs). Cherry
Point Marine Base also discharged to Slocum Creek. Intensive surveys, as well as instream
monitoring by the facilities, indicated that no assimilative capacity was available. Cherry Point's
discharge was relocated to the Neuse River. Havelock was allowed to expand and remain in
Slocum Creek with extremely stringent limits (essentially based on "best available technology
economically achievable"). The plant is required to meet the lowest oxygen consuming waste
limits and nutrient limits in the state.
Slocum Creek is no longer listed on the state's 303d list for impaired water bodies. However,
that is due to the estuarine environment which makes impacts from point or nonpoint sources
more difficult to assess. Downstream data (taken by the LNBA at Slocum Road) still indicate
instances of dissolved oxygen levels less than 5 mg/l.
During a site visit March 23, 2000, Havelock staff requested an increase in the CBOD5 limit.
The City adds methanol at times for denit ification. However, the CBOD5 values increase with
methanol addition. The City would like some flexibility in order to reduce the total nitrogen
levels even more. DWQ offered the City a BOD5 limit of 5 mg/l (which is equivalent to a
CBOD5 litnit of 3 ntg/l).
Currently, the City has chosen not to become part of the nutrient trading association (since they
have installed necessary treatment already).
Havelock
NPDES Renewal
Page I

TOXICITY TESTING:
Current Requirement:Chronic P/F Q 90% (also recommended with renewal)
Havelock has had 2 failures in the previous 2 years, which were immediately followed up with
passes.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY: BASED ON THE PREVIOUS 2 YEARS
Havelock has had two limit excursions during the past 2 years (this is based on computer
download only).
September 1999: Flow = 1.9141 MGD (limit 1.9 MGDO; this occurred as a result of Hurricane
Floyd.
July 1998: CBOD5 = 6.92 mg/1 (3.0 mg/1 limit). Facility was assessed $1338.80 and appealed
the assessment. (ref. Case LV 98-1671.
INSTREAM MONITORING:
Havelock is part of the Lower Neuse Basin Association (LNBA) and is not required to perform
the instream monitoring required in this permit.
The LNBA monitors Slocum Creek at Slocum Road. The data indicate depressed DOs during
summer months (some appear to be indicative of algal blooms).
PROPOSED CHANGES:
Havelock currently is required to meet extremely stringent CBOD5 and NH3-N limits
as well as TN and TP limits due to previously documented localized impacts. The TN
limit in the previous permit was 4 mg/I and 8 mg/I (summer/winter). This is
equivalent to the proposed annual load limit, therefore the City accepted the annual
load limit to be implemented with this permit issuance (deleting the concentration
based limit).
Monitoring for metals parameters (other than copper and zinc) have been eliminated
from the permit due to lack potential to exceed the WQ standard in the effluent
(lead, nickel, and chromium). NC has no WQ standard for aluminum and this
parameter, like copper and zinc, is very dependent on hardness and pH (it has been
eliminated as a monitoring requirement). The facility has no industrial wastewater
and their pretreatment program is inactive.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: April 26, 2000 (est.)
Permit Scheduled to Issue: June 19, 2000 (est.)
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Susan Wilson at [phone] ext. 510.
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENT:
NAME: DATE:
Havelock
NPDES Renewal
Pace

CHRONOLOGY
4/16/00
Refer to addendum (written with previous permit), History of Slocum Creek Issues)
Since that time,
1994 - previous permit issued and adjudicated by Havelock. Changed effective date of TN
limits to June 1997, after expansion above 1.5 MGD.
1995, July - Havelock signed first LNBA agreement.
1996, April- CG&L issued Authorization to Construct/converted to 2 stage activated
sludge process, nutrient removal.
1998, September - DWQ received Havelock's renewal application.
1998, June through 2000, March - DWQ has to revise nitrogen allocation, submit TMDL
for EPA approval, and revise Neuse rules. In February 2000, EPA approved NCDWQs TMDL
and the EMC approved revised temporary Neuse rules.
2000, March - site visit to Havelock/ met with Mr. and Mrs. Rexrode and ORC (Bill
Ebron?). Requested more lenient CBOD5 limit (due to addition of methanol into
wastestream for assistance with TN removal).
s = 5 +��� I �sTctDSPH En3DsZ000AFRIt- 24 - W/ s
OF CP-OPS LINIT, G(" Ar�EP'CD TN ljfM(AL L ,40 LIMIT (No-, aF
t.(di211s^yf T2AJIrty fi Sror . - CAN 4W?Vk-D/ A-cNIEV6,
Navclock
NPDES Renewal
Page 3

r
SOC Priority Project: Yes_ No X
If"yes", SOC No.
To: Permits and Engineering
Water Quality Section
Attn: Charles Weaver /6
0
Date: October 26, 1998 � J4
is
t ���q���
� ��?
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ChS�q. w °boo-
Craven County 0
Permit No. NCO021253
PARTI - GENERALINFORMATION o�
r`
1. Facility and Address: °�9
�rV
City of Havelock Wastewater Treatment Plant ti
City of Havelock
Craven County
Mailing address
City of Havelock
P. O. Drawer 368 `o aka o
Havelock,NC 28532 q P�
-a n
2. Date of Investigation: September 18, 1998 k V-t�`� c > ?yc
3. Report Prepared by:Barry Adams 0t�, ,V iro o
0 0'
4. Person(s) Contacted and Telephone Number(s):
Ms. Susan Rexrode [phone] C
5. Directions to Site:
At the intersection Hwy 70 East and Jackson Drive within the Havelock city limits, Craven County, turn
north on to Jackson Drive. The entrance into the treatment plant is approximately 0.4 miles on the east
side of the road.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points: There is only 1 discharge(001).
Latitude: 34o 53' 20,,N Longitude: 76° 54, 30,,W
Attach USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility site and discharge point on map.
USGS Quad No. USGS Quad Name: Havelock
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application? Yes X No_
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92 Page 1

8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included)
Flat; approx. elevation 10-feet above MSL
9. Location of nearest dwelling: 75-yards
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: East Prong of Slocum Creek, a tributary of the Neuse River
Basin
a. Classification: C Swp NSW
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 03-04-10
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
Used for recreational fishing,boating and drainage.
PART 11 - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of Wastewater to be Permitted: 1.9 MGD
b. Current permitted capacity: 1.9 MGD
c. Actual Treatment Capacity: 1.9 MGD
d. Date(s) and construction allowed by Authorizations to Construct issued in past two years:
March 15, 1996—convert existing 1.5 mgd contact stabilization treatment plant to a 1.9 mgd, 2-stage
activated sludge process to include new implellers and new 20 hp motors on the 3 pumps in the
influent pump station; modification of the flow splitter box with the addition of two 2.5-inch weirs to
provide equal flow split to the first stage aeration basins; conversion of the existing contact
stabilization tanks to first stage aeration basins with the addition of fine bubble diffusers,utilizing the
3 60 hp, 1300 cfm blowers ; modification to the influent and effluent structures of the 2 existing
complete mix aeration basins to allow a series flow pattern;the addition of a third aeration basin with
coarse bubble aeration utilizing the existing 4,40 hp, 1025scfm blowers;new impellers on the 2, 65.7
hp 2-stage pumps in the existing final clarifier pump station to provide a new capacity of 2800—5400
gpm; a new final clarifier splitter box; 2 new 65-ft. diameter final clarifiers with 2-3/< hp flocculators
each for alum mixing; a 7,500 gal alum storage tank with dual 4.0— 11.00 gph metering pumps; 3
new 335 sq. ft. deep bed, mono-media tertiary filters; a 7,500 gal methanol storage tank with dual
1.5- 15.0 gph feed pumps for denitrification;conversion of the existing chlorine contact chamber to
ultraviolet disinfection; new dual 5 hp, 250 gpm pumps in the existing reaeration basin to pump plant
effluent to the filter washwater supply basin;conversion of the existing aerated sludge holding tank to
a filter washwater supply basin and filter backwash holding basin with dual 50 hp, 2000 gpm
backwash pumps; 3 new 125 hp, 1660 cfm blowers to supply air scour for the effluent filters, supply
mixing air for the stabilized sludge holding tank and to serve as a backup air supply to the first stage
aeration basin#2; new metering vaults with ultrasonic flow meters and pinch valves for controlling
return and waste sludge rates; a new 1.0 meter gravity belt thickener with dual 7.5 hp, 110 gpm feed
pumps in the existing solids handling building; conversion of the existing final clarifier to a stabilized
sludge holding tank; a new slab mounted, double wall 1,500 gal fuel storage tank for the existing
diesel engine generator;and associated yard piping, site and electrical work.
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92 Page 2

e. Description of existing or substantially constructed wastewater treatment facilities:
influent screens and grit removal followed by an activated sludge process consisting of dual first-
stage aeration basins followed by three second-stage aeration basins,polyaluminum chloride and
polymer feed facilities with storage tanks, two secondary clarifiers, three denitrification filters, UV
disinfection basin with associated disinfection facilities, reaeration basin, effluent flow measuring
device, waste biosolids holding tank,dual gravity belt thickeners,biosolids stabilization tank,
stabilized biosolids holding basin and associated treatment process piping,valves, pumps, motors and
blowers.
f. Description of proposed wastewater treatment facilities:
same as above
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: none
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
In development Approved
Should be required Not needed X
2. Residuals Handling and Utilization/Disposal Scheme
a. If residuals are being land applied, specify DEM permit number: WQ0000702_
b. Residuals Stabilization: PSRP X PFRP Other
c. Landfill: n/a
d. Other disposallutilization scheme (specify):
3. Treatment Plant Classification (attach completed rating sheet): Class IV (see attached letter)
4. SIC Codc(s): 4952
Wastewater Code(s): Primary 01 Secondary
Main Treatment Unit Code: 112 3
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any public monies involved
(municipals only)?
yes
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests:
3. Important SOC, JOC, or Compliance Schedule dates (indicate): none
4. Alternatives Analysis Evaluation: NA
Spray Irrigation:
Connection to Regional Sewer System: Subsurface Disposal: not appropriate
Other Disposal Options: none
5. Other Special Items: none
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92 Page 3

PART IV- EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the permit be reissued.
Signatur of report preparer
��wN4Uty,:�
Water Quali Regional Su 'ervisor
Date
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92 Page 4

I _ N
24 Qrr=27
J_4iV� 25 n
\\ ,_
64
INV
tea,
�J28
D11v • .(\ — I IIl " �� � � 2. 29 O
u
� 'U S r orps Air Station
;l ■11 y..
it
4aJelocKWWT
/� s;a -. `_ '� •..�.,.�I ��., s .o.l ^gym 76°5,
z3� NEwr'vfRr
(MASON Cr MeK �/` mh Ja Are ra 1, ri .u.
5653
SCALE ROAD CLASSIFICATION
}
Heavy duty._._ —
4 CANE 16 LANE Light duty..........._.....
--
I— 2000 3. Medium duty__� n LANES Uremproved dirt .......
e
� U. S. Route
O State Route
.—. .__..

Slocum Creek Data
Agency Station Parameter Date Depth Result Rmk
LNBA J9330000 10 7/20/95 13:15 0.49199 31 ��33 000O
LNBA J9330000 (�-300 7/20/95 13:15 0.49199
LNBA J9330000 400 7/20/95 13:15 0.49199 8.8 Ste^ AT.
LNBA J9330000 610 7/20/95 13:15 0.49199 0.3 K SLoGu/U R o. © G(a2Rt( Pt
LNBA J9330000 625 7/20/95 13:15 0.49199 0.63
LNBA J9330000 630 7/20/95 13:15 0.49199 0.05 K 1
LNBA J9330000 665 7/20/95 13:15 0.49199 0.28 r -76
LNBA J9330000 10 7/20/9513:20 0.98399 30 7�•�11
LNBA J9330000 , 300=7/20/95_13:20_0.98399 9-4-I
LNBA J9330000 400 7/20/95 13:20 0.98399 8.8 °F 0 Su{ gP51Z
LNBA J9330000 10 7/20/9513:25 2.0008 29
LNBA J9330000 300 7/20/9513:25 2.0008 8:8D
LNBA J9330000 400 7/20/9513:25 2.0008 8.7
LNBA J9330000 10 7/20/9513:30 2.9848 29
LNBA J9330000 300 7/20/9513:30 2.9848 6:6)
LNBA J9330000 400 7/20/9513:30 2.9848 8.5
LNBA J9330000 10 7/27/9511:40 0.49199 27.5
LNBA J9330000 300 7/27/9511:40 0.49199 9-4>
LNBA J9330000 400 7/27/9511:40 0.49199 8.3
LNBA J9330000 610 7/27/9511:40 0.49199 0.3 K
LNBA J9330000 625 7/27/9511:40 0.49199 0.74
LNBA J9330000 630 7/27/95 11:40 0.49199 0.05 K
LNBA J9330000 665 7/27/9511:40 0.49199 0.32
LNBA J9330000 10 7/27/9511:45 0.98399 27.5
LNBA J9330000 300 7/27/9511:45 0.98399 tl'07
LNBA J9330000 400 7/27/9511:45 0.98399 8.4
LNBA J9330000 10 7/27/9511:50 2.0008 27.5
LNBA J9330000 300 7/27/9511:50 2.0008 t9.83,
LNBA J9330000 400 7/27/9511:50 2.0008 8.4
LNBA J9330000 10 8/9/9511:45 2.9848 24.5
LNBA J9330000 300 8/9/9511:45 2.9848 521'
LNBA J9330000 400 8/9/9511:45 2.9848 8.1
LNBA J9330000 10 8/9/9511:50 1.5088 24.5
LNBA J9330000 300 8/9/9511:50 1.5088 (5:7),
LNBA J9330000 400 8/9/9511:50 1.5088 8.1
LNBA J9330000 10 8/9/9511:55 0.49199 25
LNBA J9330000 300 8/9/9511:55 0.49199 8:6>
LNBA J9330000 400 8/9/9511:55 0.49199 8.4
LNBA J9330000 610 8/9/9511:55 0.49199 0.3 K
LNBA J9330000 625 8/9/95 11:55 0.49199 0.5 K
LNBA J9330000 630 8/9/9511:55 0.49199 0.05 K
LNBA J9330000 665 8/9/9511:55 0.49199 0.35
LNBA J9330000 10 8/24/9511:35 2.9848 26.5
LNBA J9330000 300 8/24/9511:35 2.9848 C
LNBA J9330000 400 8/24/9511:35 2.9848 7.7
LNBA J9330000 10 8/24/9511:40 1.5088 27
LNBA J9330000 300 8/24/9511:40 1.5088 18.-.>
LNBA J9330000 400 8/24/9511:40 1.5088 7.8
LNBA J9330000 10 8/24/9511:45 0.49199 27
LNBA J9330000 300 8/24/9511:45 0.49199 J
1

Slocum Creek Data
Agency Station Parameter Date Depth Result Rmk
LNBA J9330000 400 8/24/9511:45 0.49199 7.8
LNBA J9330000 610 8/24/95 11:45 0.49199 0.3 K
LNBA J9330000 625 8/24/9511:45 0.49199 1.08
LNBA J9330000 630 8/24/9511:45 0.49199 0.05
LNBA J9330000 665 8/24/9511:45 0.49199 0.32
LNBA J9330000 10 9/19/9510:00 3.28 22
LNBA J9330000 300 9/19195 10:00 3.28 [4,) o
LNBA J9330000 400 9/19/9510:00 3.28 7
LNBA J9330000 10 9/19/9510:05 1.64 21.5
LNBA J9330000 300 9/19/9510:05 1.64 (18�-'a
LNBA J9330000 400 9/19/9510:05 1.64 7
LNBA J9330000 10 9/19/95 10:10 0.49199 21.5
LNBA J9330000 300 9/19/95 10:10 0.49199 U
LNBA J9330000 400 9/19/95 10:10 0.49199 7
LNBA J9330000 610 9/19/95 10:10 0.49199 0.3 K
LNBA J9330000 625 9/19/95 10:10 0.49199 0.82
LNBA J9330000 630 9/19/95 10:10 0.49199 0.05 K
LNBA J9330000 665 9/19/95 10:10 0.49199 0.23
LNBA J9330000 10 9/26/9511:40 3.28 20
LNBA J9330000 300 9/26/9511:40 3.28 C6-.8
LNBA J9330000 400 9/26/9511:40 3.28 7.1
LNBA J9330000 10 9/26/9511:45 1.64 20.5
LNBA J9330000 300 9/26/9511:45 1.64 (8D
LNBA J9330000 400 9/26/9511:45 1.64 7.3
LNBA J9330000 10 9/26/9511:50 0.49199 21
LNBA J9330000 300 9/26/9511:50 0.49199 U
LNBA J9330000 400 9/26/9511:50 0.49199 7.4
LNBA J9330000 610 9/26/9511:50 0.49199 0.3 K
LNBA J9330000 625 9/26/9511:50 0.49199 0.53
LNBA J9330000 630 9/26/9511:50 0.49199 0.05 K
LNBA J9330000 665 9/26/9511:50 0.49199 0.16
LNBA J9330000 10 6/12/9612:45 0.49199 28
LNBA J9330000 300 6/12/9612:45 0.49199 (7:6)
LNBA J9330000 400 6/12/9612:45 0.49199 7.4
LNBA J9330000 610 6/12/96 12:45 0.49199 0.3 K
LNBA J9330000 625 6/12/9612:45 0.49199 1.29
LNBA J9330000 630 6/12/9612:45 0.49199 0.73
LNBA J9330000 665 6/12/9612:45 0.49199 0.16
LNBA J9330000 10 6/12/9612:50 1.64 25
LNBA J9330000 300 6/12/9612:50 1.64 (5:8)
LNBA J9330000 400 6/12/9612:50 1.64 7.5
LNBA J9330000 10 6/12/9612:55 3.28 25
LNBA J9330000 300 6/12/9612:55 3.28 5�4
LNBA J9330000 400 6/12/9612:55 3.28 7.6
LNBA J9330000 10 6/19/9611:05 0.49199 24
LNBA J9330000 300 6/19/9611:05 0.49199 7`6D
LNBA J9330000 400 6/19/9611:05 0.49199 6.6
LNBA J9330000 610 6/19/96 11:05 0.49199 0.3 K
LNBA J9330000 625 6/19/9611:05 0.49199 0.5 K
LNBA J9330000 630 6/19/9611:05 0.49199 0.5
2

Slocum Creek Data
Agency Station Parameter Date Depth Result Rmk
LNBA J9330000 665 6/19/96 11:05 0.49199 0.05 K
LNBA J9330000 10 6/19/9611:10 1.64 24
LNBA J9330000 300 6/19/9611:10 1.64 5_63
LNBA J9330000 400 6/19/9611:10 1.64 6.8
LNBA J9330000 10 6/19/9611:15 _ 3.28 24
LNBA J9330000 300 6/19/9611:15 3.28 T2
LNBA J9330000 400 6/19/9611:15 3.28 6.8
LNBA J9330000 10 7/11/9614:57 0.49199 25
LNBA J9330000 300 7/11/9614:57 0.49199 (8:7
LNBA J9330000 400 7/11/9614:57 0.49199 7.7
LNBA J9330000 610 7/11/9614:57 0.49199 0.3 K
LNBA J9330000 625 7/11/9614:57 0.49199 0.61
LNBA J9330000 630 7/11/9614:57 0.49199 0.09
LNBA J9330000 665 7/11/9614:57 0.49199 0.15
LNBA J9330000 10 7/11/9615:00 1.64 25
LNBA J9330000 300 7/11/9615:00 1.64 V.67
LNBA J9330000 400 7/11/9615:00 1.64 7.6
LNBA J9330000 10 7/11/9615:05 3.28 25
LNBA J9330000 300 7/11/9615:05 3.28 t52�?
LNBA J9330000 400 7/11/9615:05 3.28 7.6
LNBA J9330000 10 7/17/9614:00 0.49199 27
LNBA J9330000 300 7/17/9614:00 0.49199 OD
LNBA J9330000 400 7/17/9614:00 0.49199 6.8
LNBA J9330000 610 7/17/96 14:00 0.49199 0.3 K
LNBA J9330000 625 7/17/9614:00 0.49199 0.6
LNBA J9330000 630 7/17/9614:00 0.49199 0.43
LNBA J9330000 665 7/17/9614:00 0.49199 0.17
LNBA J9330000 10 7/17/9614:05 1.64 27
LNBA J9330000 300 7/17/9614:05 1.64 (5:6D
LNBA J9330000 400 7/17/9614:05 1.64 6.7
LNBA J9330000 10 7/17/9614:10 3.28 27
LNBA J9330000 300 7/17/9614:10 3.28 t-4.3^a
LNBA J9330000 400 7/17/9614:10 3.28 6.6
LNBA J9330000 10 8/15/9611:40 0.49199 28
LNBA J9330000 300 8/15/9611:40 0.49199 CT?
LNBA J9330000 400 8/15/9611:40 0.49199 6.8
LNBA J9330000 610 8/15/96 11:40 0.49199 0.3 K
LNBA J9330000 625 8/15/9611:40 0.49199 0.72
LNBA J9330000 630 8/15/9611:40 0.49199 0.38
LNBA J9330000 665 8/15/9611:40 0.49199 0.11
LNBA J9330000 10 8/15/9611:45 1.64 28
LNBA J9330000 300 8/15/9611:45 1.64 (476- o
LNBA J9330000 400 8/15/9611:45 1.64 6.8
LNBA J9330000 10 8/15/9611:50 3.28 28
LNBA J9330000 300 8/15/96 11:50 3.28 (
LNBA J9330000 400 8/15/9611:50 3.28 6.9
LNBA J9330000 10 8/22/96 9:00 0.49199 25
LNBA J9330000 300 8/22/96 9:00 0.49199 t7_.-4
LNBA J9330000 400 8/22/96 9:00 0.49199 7.6
LNBA J9330000 610 8/22/96 9:00 0.49199 0.3 K
3

Slocum Creek Data
Agency Station Parameter Date Depth Result Rmk
LNBA J9330000 625 8/22/96 9:00 0.49199 0.62
LNBA J9330000 630 8/22/96 9:00 0.49199 0.82
LNBA J9330000 665 8/22/96 9:00 0.49199 0.11
LNBA J9330000 10 8/22/96 9:05 1.64 25
LNBA J9330000 300 8/22/96 9:05 1.64 5'21
LNBA J9330000 400 8/22/96 9:05 1.64 7.4
LNBA J9330000 10 8/22/96 9:10 3.28 25
LNBA J9330000 300 8/22/96 9:10 3.28 13 ) a
LNBA J9330000 400 8/22/96 9:10 3.28 7.4
LNBA J9330000 10 6/18/9711:55 0.49199 29
LNBA J9330000 300 6/18/9711:55 0.49199 119-.47
LNBA J9330000 400 6/18/9711:55 0.49199 7.6
LNBA J9330000 610 6/18/9711:55 0.49199 0.01 K
LNBA J9330000 625 6/18/9711:55 0.49199 0.7
LNBA J9330000 630 6/18/9711:55 0.49199 0.06
LNBA J9330000 665 6/18/9711:55 0.49199 0.06
LNBA J9330000 10 6/18/9711:58 1.64 27.7
LNBA J9330000 300 6/18/9711:58 1.64 [9:37
LNBA J9330000 400 6/18/9711:58 1.64 7.4
LNBA J9330000 10 6/18/9712:00 3.28 27.6
LNBA J9330000 300 6/18/9712:00 3.28 18-8
LNBA J9330000 400 6/18/9712:00 3.28 7.2
LNBA J9330000 10 6/18/9713:30 0.49199 27.5
LNBA J9330000 300 6/18/9713:30 0.49199 (7.:37
LNBA J9330000 400 6/18/9713:30 0.49199 7.2
LNBA J9330000 610 6/18/9713:30 0.49199 0.01 K
LNBA J9330000 625 6/18/9713:30 0.49199 0.59
LNBA J9330000 630 6/18/9713:30 0.49199 0.01 K
LNBA J9330000 665 6/18/9713:30 0.49199 0.05
LNBA J9330000 10 6/18/9713:33 1.64 23.1
LNBA J9330000 300 6/18/97 13:33 1.64 L4'.5_� 6
LNBA J9330000 400 6/18/9713:33 1.64 6.8
LNBA J9330000 10 6/18/9713:36 3.28 23
LNBA J9330000 300 6/18/9713:36 3.28 C2:8, o
LNBA J9330000 400 6/18/9713:36 3.28 6.7
LNBA J9330000 10 7/9/9714:25 0.49199 30.4
LNBA J9330000 300 7/9/9714:25 0.49199 L5.7!
LNBA J9330000 400 7/9/9714:25 0.49199 8
LNBA J9330000 610 7/9/9714:25 0.49199 0.01 K
LNBA J9330000 625 7/9/9714:25 0.49199 0.74
LNBA J9330000 630 7/9/9714:25 0.49199 0.01 K
LNBA J9330000 665 7/9/9714:25 0.49199 0.06
LNBA J9330000 10 7/9/9714:27 1.64 30.4
LNBA J9330000 300 7/9/9714:27 1.64 16.4)
LNBA J9330000 400 7/9/9714:27 1.64 7.9
LNBA J9330000 10 7/9/9714:29 3.28 30.2
LNBA J9330000 300 7/9/97 14:29 3.28 (19 4�
LNBA J9330000 400 7/9/9714:29 3.28 7.6
LNBA J9330000 10 7/17/9712:15 0.49199 31.5
LNBA J9330000 300 7/17/9712:15 0.49199 (3-47-4,
4

Slocum Creek Data
Agency Station Parameter Date Depth Result Rmk
LNBA J9330000 400 7/17/9712:15 0.49199 7.7
LNBA J9330000 610 7/17/9712:15 0.49199 0.01 K
LNBA J9330000 625 7/17/9712:15 0.49199 0.36
LNBA J9330000 630 7/17/9712:15 0.49199 0.01 K
LNBA J9330000 665 7/17/9712:15 0.49199 0.12
LNBA J9330000 10 7/17/9712:18 1.64 31.3
LNBA J9330000 300 7/17/97 12:18 1.64 (3 3j u
LNBA J9330000 400 7/17/9712:18 1.64 7.6
LNBA J9330000 10 7/17/9712:21 3.28 31
LNBA J9330000 300 7/17/97 12:21 3.28 (3 2-3 6
LNBA J9330000 400 7/17/9712:21 3.28 7.5
LNBA J9330000 10 8/12/9712:40 3.28 28.5
LNBA J9330000 300 8/12/9712:40 3.28 15
LNBA J9330000 400 8/12/9712:40 3.28 7.4
LNBA J9330000 10 8/12/9712:45 1.64 28.5
LNBA J9330000 300 8/12/9712:45 1.64 C6:8>
LNBA J9330000 400 8/12/9712:45 1.64 7.5
LNBA J9330000 10 8/12/9712:50 0.49199 28.7
LNBA J9330000 300 8/12/9712:50 0.49199 CT8-D,
LNBA J9330000 400 8/12/9712:50 0.49199 7.7
LNBA J9330000 610 8/12/9712:50 0.49199 0.03
LNBA J9330000 625 8/12/9712:50 0.49199 0.94
LNBA J9330000 630 8/12/9712:50 0.49199 0.04
LNBA J9330000 665 8/12/9712:50 0.49199 0.13
LNBA J9330000 10 8/18/9713:30 3.28 32.4
LNBA J9330000 300 8/18/9713:30 3.28 L6V
LNBA J9330000 400 8/18/9713:30 3.28 7.6
LNBA J9330000 10 8/18/9713:33 1.64 33
LNBA J9330000 300 8/18/9713:33 1.64 L6-?
LNBA J9330000 400 8/18/9713:33 1.64 7.8
LNBA J9330000 10 8/18/9713:36 0.49199 33.6
LNBA J9330000 300 8/18/9713:36 0.49199 [8�
LNBA J9330000 400 8/18/9713:36 0.49199 7.9
LNBA J9330000 610 8/18/9713:36 0.49199 0.01
LNBA J9330000 625 8/18/9713:36 0.49199 0.88
LNBA J9330000 630 8/18/9713:36 0.49199 0.07
LNBA J9330000 665 8/18/9713:36 0.49199 0.03
LNBA J9330000 10 9/11/9712:00 0.49199 25
LNBA J9330000 300 9/11/9712:00 0.49199 (6-3->
LNBA J9330000 400 9/11/9712:00 0.49199 7.4
LNBA J9330000 610 9/11/9712:00 0.49199 0.03
LNBA J9330000 625 9/11/9712:00 0.49199 0.32
LNBA J9330000 630 9/11/9712:00 0.49199 0.05
LNBA J9330000 665 9/11/9712:00 0.49199 0.15
LNBA J9330000 10 9/11/9712:05 1.64 24.9
LNBA J9330000 300 9/11/9712:05 1.64 572)
LNBA J9330000 400 9/11/9712:05 1.64 7.4
LNBA J9330000 10 9/11/9712:10 3.28 24.8
LNBA J9330000 300 9/11/97 12:10 3.28 4"2:� m
LNBA J9330000 400 9/11/9712:10 3.28 7.4
5

Slocum Creek Data
Agency Station Parameter Date Depth Result Rmk
LNBA J9330000 10 9/19/9716:40 0.49199 30.4
LNBA J9330000 300 9/19/9716:40 0.49199 �3�
LNBA J9330000 400 9/19/9716:40 0.49199 7.4
LNBA J9330000 610 9/19/9716:40 0.49199 0.21
LNBA J9330000 625 9/19/9716:40 0.49199 0.76
LNBA J9330000 630 9/19/9716:40 0.49199 0.12
LNBA J9330000 665 9/19/9716:40 0.49199 0.2
LNBA J9330000 10 9/19/9716:45 1.64 29.9
LNBA J9330000 300 9/19/9716:45 1.64 C47T
LNBA J9330000 400 9/19/9716:45 1.64 7
LNBA J9330000 10 9/19/9716:50 3.28 29.5
LNBA J9330000 300 9/19/9716:50 3.28 C373-,o
LNBA J9330000 400 9/19/9716:50 3.28 6.9
LNBA J9330000 610 6/8/9811:40 0.32808 0.07
LNBA J9330000 625 6/8/9811:40 0.32808 1
LNBA J9330000 630 6/8/9811:40 0.32808 0.01 K
LNBA J9330000 665 6/8/9811:40 0.32808 0.1
LNBA J9330000 10 6/8/9811:50 1 25
LNBA J9330000 300 6/8/9811:50 1 CUD
LNBA J9330000 400 6/8/9811:50 1 7.19
LNBA J9330000 10 6/8/9811:55 2 25
LNBA J9330000 300 6/8/9811:55 2 CS-0
LNBA J9330000 400 6/8/9811:55 2 7.22
LNBA J9330000 10 6/8/9812:00 3 25
LNBA J9330000 300 6/8/9812:00 3 54
LNBA J9330000 400 6/8/9812:00 3 7.27
LNBA J9330000 10 6/8/9812:05 4 24
LNBA J9330000 300 6/8/9812:05 4 5"3>
LNBA J9330000 400 6/8/9812:05 4 7.24
LNBA J9330000 10 6/8/9812:10 4.5 24
LNBA J9330000 300 6/8/9812:10 4.5 (2:3 e
LNBA J9330000 400 6/8/9812:10 4.5 7.27
LNBA J9330000 10 6/8/9812:20 0 25
LNBA J9330000 300 6/8/9812:20 0 0�7.
LNBA J9330000 400 6/8/9812:20 0 6.97
LNBA J9330000 10 6/22/9811:00 0 30
LNBA J9330000 300 6/22/9811:00 0 C7.:7)
LNBA J9330000 400 6/22/9811:00 0 7.85
LNBA J9330000 10 6/22/9811:08 1 30
LNBA J9330000 300 6/22/9811:08 1 6-9)
LNBA J9330000 400 6/22/9811:08 1 7.65
LNBA J9330000 10 6/22/9811:10 2 29
LNBA J9330000 300 6/22/9811:10 2 l7
LNBA J9330000 400 6/22/9811:10 2 7.58
LNBA J9330000 10 6/22/9811:15 3 29
LNBA J9330000 300 6/22/9811:15 3 <6.3
LNBA J9330000 400 6/22/9811:15 3 7.52
LNBA J9330000 10 6/22/9811:18 4 29
LNBA J9330000 300 6/22/9811:18 4 U
LNBA J9330000 400 6/22/9811:18 4 7.38
6

Slocum Creek Data
Agency Station Parameter Date Depth Result Rmk
LNBA J9330000 10 6/22/9811:20 5 29
LNBA J9330000 300 6/22/98 11:20 5 1 81 0-
LNBA J9330000 400 6/22/9811:20 5 7.11
LNBA J9330000 610 6/22/9811:40 0.32808 0.02
LNBA J9330000 625 6/22/9811:40 0.32808 1.3
LNBA J9330000 630 6/22/9811:40 0.32808 0.01 K
LNBA J9330000 665 6/22/9811:40 0.32808 0.25
LNBA J9330000 10 7/13/9811:00 0 29
LNBA J9330000 300 7/13/9811:00 0 (4"6Jp
LNBA J9330000 400 7/13/9811:00 0 7.54
LNBA J9330000 10 7/13/9811:02 1 29
LNBA J9330000 300 7/13/98 11:02 1 4767
LNBA J9330000 400 7/13/9811:02 1 7.5
LNBA J9330000 10 7/13/9811:04 2 29
LNBA J9330000 300 7/13/9811:04 2 C4:5D
LNBA J9330000 400 7/13/9811:04 2 7.5
LNBA J9330000 10 7/13/9811:06 3 29
LNBA J9330000 300 7/13/9811:06 3 (4-2De
LNBA J9330000 400 7/13/9811:06 3 7.45
LNBA J9330000 10 7/13/9811:08 4 29
LNBA J9330000 300 7/13/9811:08 4 C4�?°
LNBA J9330000 400 7/13/9811:08 4 7.43
LNBA J9330000 10 7/13/9811:10 5 29
LNBA J9330000 300 7/13/9811:10 5 L8�m
LNBA J9330000 400 7/13/9811:10 5 7.36
LNBA J9330000 610 7/13/9811:15 0.32808 0.02
LNBA J9330000 625 7/13/9811:15 0.32808 1.3
LNBA J9330000 630 7/13/9811:15 0.32808 0.39
LNBA J9330000 665 7/13/9811:15 0.32808 0.11
LNBA J9330000 10 7/27/9810:50 0 28
LNBA J9330000 300 7/27/9810:50 0 C6-T
LNBA J9330000 400 7/27/9810:50 0 7.2
LNBA J9330000 10 7/27/9810:55 1 28
LNBA J9330000 300 7/27/9810:55 1 6-4)
LNBA J9330000 400 7/27/9810:55 1 7.08
LNBA J9330000 10 7/27/9811:00 2 28
LNBA J9330000 300 7/27/9811:00 2 `6:5-
LNBA J9330000 400 7/27/9811:00 2 7.03
LNBA J9330000 10 7/27/9811:05 3 28
LNBA J9330000 300 7/27/98 11:05 3 '4 Z 6
LNBA J9330000 400 7/27/9811:05 3 7.08
LNBA J9330000 10 7/27/9811:10 4 28.5
LNBA J9330000 300 7/27/98 11:10 4 ( �1)9
LNBA J9330000 400 7/27/9811:10 4 6.99
LNBA J9330000 10 7/27/9811:15 5 29
LNBA J9330000 300 7/27/98 11:15 5 -3)e
LNBA J9330000 400 7/27/9811:15 5 6.98
LNBA J9330000 610 7/27/9811:20 0.32808 0.17
LNBA J9330000 625 7/27/9811:20 0.32808 0.74
LNBA J9330000 630 7/27/9811:20 0.32808 0.27
7

Slocum Creek Data
Agency Station Parameter Date Depth Result Rmk
LNBA J9330000 665 7/27/9811:20 0.32808 0.09
LNBA J9330000 10 8/10/98 9:50 1 29
LNBA J9330000 300 8/10/98 9:50 1
LNBA J9330000 400 8/10/98 9:50 1 7.95
LNBA J9330000 10 8/10/98 9:55 2 29
LNBA J9330000 300 8/10/98 9:55 2 6:4
LNBA J9330000 400 8/10/98 9:55 2 7.79
LNBA J9330000 10 8/10/9810:00 3 29.9
LNBA J9330000 300 8/10/9810:00 3 C575:),
LNBA J9330000 400 8/10/9810:00 3 7.77
LNBA J9330000 10 8/10/9810:05 4 29.7
LNBA J9330000 300 8/10/98 10:05 4 4.6)%
LNBA J9330000 400 8/10/9810:05 4 7.72
LNBA J9330000 10 8/10/9810:09 5 29.8
LNBA J9330000 300 8/10/9810:09 5 1C 7---�a
LNBA J9330000 400 8/10/9810:09 5 7.7
LNBA J9330000 10 8/10/9810:13 0 29.2
LNBA J9330000 300 8/10/9810:13 0 (TT-D
LNBA J9330000 400 8/10/9810:13 0 7.95
LNBA J9330000 610 8/10/9810:13 0.32808 0.01 K
LNBA J9330000 625 8/10/9810:13 0.32808 0.6
LNBA J9330000 630 8/10/9810:13 0.32808 2.71
LNBA J9330000 665 8/10/9810:13 0.32808 0.13
LNBA J9330000 10 8/21/9811:00 1 28
LNBA J9330000 300 8/21/9811:00 1 C7..6�
LNBA J9330000 400 8/21/9811:00 1 7.6
LNBA J9330000 10 8/21/9811:03 2 28
LNBA J9330000 300 8/21/9811:03 2 C6.7
LNBA J9330000 400 8/21/9811:03 2 7.68
LNBA J9330000 10 8/21/9811:10 3 28
LNBA J9330000 300 8/21/9811:10 3 L6_3)
LNBA J9330000 400 8/21/9811:10 3 7.69
LNBA J9330000 10 8/21/9811:15 4 28
LNBA J9330000 300 8/21/9811:15 4 (6?
LNBA J9330000 400 8/21/9811:15 4 7.56
LNBA J9330000 10 8/21/9811:20 0 27
LNBA J9330000 300 8/21/9811:20 0 C727
LNBA J9330000 400 8/21/9811:20 0 7.63
LNBA J9330000 10 8/21/9811:20 5 27.5
LNBA J9330000 300 8/21/98 11:20 5 C4 9 a
LNBA J9330000 400 8/21/9811:20 5 7.5
LNBA J9330000 610 8/21/9811:30 0.32808 0.01 K
LNBA J9330000 625 8/21/9811:30 0.32808 0.7
LNBA J9330000 630 8/21/9811:30 0.32808 0.39
LNBA J9330000 665 8/21/9811:30 0.32808 0.18
LNBA J9330000 10 9/11/9810:13 4 26.5
LNBA J9330000 300 9/11/9810:13 4 QIL8j
LNBA J9330000 400 9/11/9810:13 4 6.11
LNBA J9330000 10 9/11/9810:16 3 26.5
LNBA J9330000 300 9/11/9810:16 3 Q5-4-)
8

Slocum Creek Data
Agency Station Parameter Date Depth Result Rmk
LNBA J9330000 400 9/11/9810:16 3 6.12
LNBA J9330000 610 9/11/9810:25 0.32808 0.02
LNBA J9330000 625 9/11/9810:25 0.32808 0.7
LNBA J9330000 630 9/11/9810:25 0.32808 10.8
LNBA J9330000 665 9/11/9810:25 0.32808 0.39
LNBA J9330000 10 9/29/9810:32 0 23
LNBA J9330000 300 9/29/9810:32 0 6:5�
LNBA J9330000 400 9/29/9810:32 0 6.2
LNBA J9330000 10 9/29/9810:33 1 23
LNBA J9330000 300 9/29/9810:33 1 (6.2y
LNBA J9330000 400 9/29/9810:33 1 6.2
LNBA J9330000 10 9/29/9810:34 2 22
LNBA J9330000 300 9/29/9810:34 2 5L8-?
LNBA J9330000 400 9/29/9810:34 2 7.15
LNBA J9330000 10 9/29/9810:38 5 22
LNBA J9330000 300 9/29/9810:38 5 4.-7--?0
LNBA J9330000 400 9/29/9810:38 5 6.98
LNBA J9330000 300 8/10/9910:45 0.32808 5.;1�1
LNBA J9330000 400 8/10/9910:45 0.32808 7.6
LNBA J9330000 400 8/24/9911:40 0.32808 7.9
LNBA J9330000 300 8/24/9911:40 0.32808 18:21
LNBA J9330000 10 8/10/9910:45 0.32808 28
LNBA J9330000 10 8/24/9911:40 0.32808 29
LNBA J9330000 610 8/10/9910:45 0.32808 0.01 K
LNBA J9330000 630 8/10/9910:45 0.32808 0.1 K
LNBA J9330000 630 8/24/9911:40 0.32808 0.1 K
LNBA J9330000 625 7/27/9910:00 0.32808 4.1
LNBA J9330000 300 7/13/99 12:40 0.32808 5 4:)
LNBA J9330000 300 7/27/9910:00 0.32808 6:9::)
LNBA J9330000 400 7/13/9912:40 0.32808 7.4
LNBA J9330000 400 7/27/9910:00 0.32808 8.1
LNBA J9330000 10 7/13/9912:40 0.32808 26
LNBA J9330000 10 7/27/9910:00 0.32808 31
LNBA J9330000 630 7/13/9912:40 0.32808 0.1 K
LNBA J9330000 630 7/27/9910:00 0.32808 0.1 K
LNBA J9330000 610 8/24/9911:40 0.32808 0.05
LNBA J9330000 665 8/24/9911:40 0.32808 0.24
LNBA J9330000 665 8/10/9910:45 0.32808 0.48
LNBA J9330000 625 8/24/9911:40 0.32808 0.7
LNBA J9330000 625 8/10/9910:45 0.32808 1.9
LNBA J9330000 300 6/29/9911:40 0.32808 CLD
LNBA J9330000 400 6/29/9911:40 0.32808 7.4
LNBA J9330000 400 6/7/9911:20 0.32808 7.9
LNBA J9330000 300 6/7/9911:20 0.32808 (§:.2?
LNBA J9330000 10 6/7/9911:20 0.32808 28
LNBA J9330000 10 6/29/9911:40 0.32808 28
LNBA J9330000 610 6/29/9911:40 0.32808 0.01 K
LNBA J9330000 630 6/29/99 11:40 0.32808 2 K
LNBA J9330000 610 7/27/9910:00 0.32808 0.02
LNBA J9330000 665 7/13/9912:40 0.32808 0.12
9

Slocum Creek Data
Agency Station Parameter Date Depth Result Rmk
LNBA J9330000 610 7/13/9912:40 0.32808 0.13
LNBA J9330000 665 7/27/9910:00 0.32808 0.49
LNBA J9330000 625 7/13/9912:40 0.32808 0.5
LNBA J9330000 625 5/21/9911:03 0.32808 0.8
LNBA J9330000 625 5/7/99 9:30 0.32808 0.9
LNBA J9330000 400 5/21/99 11:03 0.32808 6.8
LNBA J9330000 400 5!7/99 9:30 0.32808 6.9
LNBA J9330000 300 5/7/99 9:30 0.32808 (7.7--)
LNBA J9330000 300 5/21/9911:03 0.32808 [8)
LNBA J9330000 10 5/7/99 9:30 0.32808 21
LNBA J9330000 10 5/21/9911:03 0.32808 24
LNBA J9330000 665 6/7/9911:20 0.32808 0.05
LNBA J9330000 630 617/9911:20 0.32808 0.1
LNBA J9330000 665 6/29/9911:40 0.32808 0.15
LNBA J9330000 610 617/9911:20 0.32808 0.4
LNBA J9330000 625 6/7/9911:20 0.32808 0.5
LNBA J9330000 625 6/29/9911:40 0.32808 0.6
LNBA J9330000 610 5/21/9911:03 0.32808 0.02
LNBA J9330000 630 5/7/99 9:30 0.32808 0.04
LNBA J9330000 665 5/21/9911:03 0.32808 0.05
LNBA J9330000 610 5/7/99 9:30 0.32808 0.06
LNBA J9330000 665 5/7/99 9:30 0.32808 0.07
LNBA J9330000 630 5/21/9911:03 0.32808 0.37
10

History of Slocum Creek Issues/I_TSMCAS Chem Pont and Havelock NPDES Permits
During the middle 1980's to early 90's,investigations of the water quality of Slocum Creek brought
about by fish kills,complaints and wastewater treatment plant expansion needs for the City of
Havelock resulted in the determination that the Creek was seriously degraded. Slocum Creek,a zero-
flow stream that is tidally influenced, has suffered persistently from low dissolved oxygen (on-going
water quality standard violations have been documented) and high algal productivity. Additional
concerns regarding the accumulation of heavy metals in the sediments and potential bioaccumulation in
fish have also been raised (state epidemiologist and US Fish & Wildlife staff raised public health
concerns in 1985,90 and 91 associated with the mercury and metals levels in Slocum Creek,although no
health advisories were issued). Intensive surveys,as well as monitoring instream by the facilities,
indicated that no assimilative capacity was available as a result of the low background dissolved
oxygen concentrations and poor flushing. Based on the studies of Lower Neuse and Slocum Creek,DEM
staff determined that the Lower Neuse River had better potential to assimilate wastewater.
USMCAS Cherry Point:
The NPDES permit for the Cherry Point wastewater treatment plant was originally issued by the US
Environmental Protection Agency. Upon the state taking responsibility for the issuance of NPDES
permits for federal facilities and based on the water quality of Slocum Creek, the Division reissued the
permit in 1988 with limits that were more stringent than the treatment capability of the existing
facility. The US Marine Corps(USMC)subsequently entered into a Special Order by Consent to
upgrade the treatment facility. As a result of the evaluation of the wastewater options and the
concerns with any continued discharge into Slocum Creek,the USMC elected to pursue and submitted an
application for a discharge to the Neuse River.
In April 1990,a public hearing was held to discuss the proposed issuance of the permit to discharge to
the Neuse River. Most of the attendees at the meeting opposed the relocation of the discharge point.
Reasons stated for maintaining the discharge into Slocum Creek included: 1)Slocum Creek was already
degraded and moving the discharge would result in similar degradation to the river;2) the
recreational and fishing uses of the river would be detrimentally impacted, possibly eliminated; and
3) the limits developed for the discharge to the river would not protect the water quality standards as
a result of inappropriate modeling efforts. Additionally, concern was expressed that the permitting
process was preceding the Environmental Assessment of the proposed action. Further processing of the
application for the relocation was put on hold,pending completion of the Environmental Assessment
and more in-depth modeling analyses.
The Environmental Assessment and modeling analyses were completed in 1991,supporting the
relocation of the outfall to the Neuse River. The subsequent issuance of the permit for the discharge
relocation required completion of the upgrade of the Cherry Point wastewater treatment plant to
tertiary levels of treatment and performarze of intensive monitoring of the Neuse River prior to
initiation of the relocation. The permit also required that the Neuse River sampling plan continue
after relocation of the outfall. Additionally the limits on toxicants were more stringent than necessary
to ensure protection of the Neuse River. The upgrade to the wastewater treatment plant was completed
in 1994, as was the "before relocation" sampling of the Neuse River. Relocation of the discharge to the
Neuse River occurred in November 1994.
i
i

City of Havelock:
In 1985,the City of Havelock requested an expansion of the wastewater treatment plant from 1.25 MGD
to 1.5 MGD. The limits developed for the facility at this time required that the City meet advanced
tertiary levels of treatment. The City was informed that modeling predicted that advanced treatment
would be required to protect the dissolved oxygen standard. Havelock documented low dissolved
oxygen in Slocum Creek and prior to additional expansion the Division committed to further evaluation
of the system.
The City initiated investigations on expansion of the wastewater treatment facility from 1.5 MGD to
25 MGD in 1987. Further evaluations of the water quality resulted in the Division advising the City
that the assimilative capacity at the location of the existing discharge point (East Prong of Slocum
Creek) was exhausted and no additional wastewater could be discharged at that location. The City
was also advised that the Division was uncertain as to whether my assimilative capacity existed in
Slocum Creek,however,a monitoring program of Slocum Creek could be initiated if the City was
interested in pursuing the option of discharging downstream of the existing discharge point. The City
chose to pursue monitoring the creek.
Based on the data collected by the City and Division staff, the determination was made that no
assimilative capacity existed in the entire Slocum Creek system. The Division recommended that
Havelock pursue relocation to the Neuse River for any expansion needs.
A request for expansion of the existing permitted discharge to Slocum Creek was received in 1991. The
City was again advised that as a result of the localized water quality problems including
stratification, anoxic conditions and algal blooms in the creek, the Division planned to proceed with
denial of the requested expansion. In response,Havelock chose to withdraw the application in 1992 to
pursue the option of a joint project with the base,relocating both discharges to the Neuse River through
one outfall/diffuser. However,as a result of the Base's and City's funding constraints/scheduling,
consolidation of the discharges was not able to be coordinated. Therefore,in November of 1992, the
City resubmitted a request for an expansion to 1.9 MGD. Extensive negotiations between Havelock and
the Division resulted in the issuance of a permit for the expansion to Slocum Creek in 1993. In order to
prevent further degradation of Slocum Creek,the permit contained limits for oxygen consuming wastes
which represent the most stringent issued in the state(CBODS=3 mg/1 and NH3=0.5 mg/1). In
addition,nutrient limits for both total phosphorous and total nitrogen were given which required
implementation of state of the art treatment technology. Furthermore, Havelock was advised that
any future planning for additional wastewater needs and treatment plant expansions would require
relocation of the discharge from Slocum Creek.
Havelock is currently evaluating the wastewater needs for the area. A speculative modeling analysis
for discharges of up to 3.15 MGD to the Neuse River was requested in July 1995.
i

i
History:
1985 Havelock requested expansion from 1.25 MGD to 1.5 MGD in Slocum Creek
1986 DEM advises City of water quality concerns in Slocum Creek
1987 Initial instream surveys completed documenting serious water quality problems
1988 Reissuance of NPDES permit to Cherry Point with tertiary treatment requirements
(initiates SOC for Base to comply with limits)
Havelock begins intensive monitoring program of Slocum Creek for potential expansion
downstream of existing discharge point.
03/89 DEM completes evaluation of data and advises no assimilative capacity exists in creek
recommends relocation of discharge to Neuse River
10/89 Cherry Point requests NPDES permit to relocate discharge to Neuse River
04/90 Public hearing on relocation request. Most attendees(109)opposed to issuance of permit
for discharge to Neuse River. Action on permit request delayed pending completion of
Environmental Assessment and further modeling analyses
07/91 Havelock requests expansion to 1.9 MGD with discharge to Slocum Creek
01/92 Based on Completed Environmental Assessment(1991)and modeling analyses,Public
Hearing Officer recommends issuance of permit to relocate Cherry Point W WTP
discharge to Neuse River conditioned upon completion of treatment plant upgrades and
completion of"before" studies of the Neuse River
02/92 Cherry Point NPDES permit for relocation to Neuse River issued (ATC also issued)
02/92 DEM advises Havelock of intention to deny request for expanded discharge to Creek
03/92 Havelock withdraws request for expanded permit to Slocum Creek and begins discussions
with Cherry Point(re: joint discharge to Neuse River)
11/92 Joint discharge option fails,Havelock requests expansion to 1.9 MGD to Slocum Creek
06/93 NPDES issued to Havelock for 1.9 MGD discharge to Slocum Creek containing advanced
tertiary limits for oxygen consuming wastes and state of art nutrient limits
03/94 NPDES permit basinwide permit renewals issued for both facilities
11/94 Cherry Point completes WWTP upgrades,Neuse River"before" studies and begins
discharge to Neuse River
07/95 Havelock requests speculative modeling analyses for discharges of up to 3.15 MGD to
Neuse River
Issues: Slocum Creek degradation, potential for similar degradation of Neuse River
Mercury/Metals contamination.
Increase in nutrients discharged to Neuse River
Actions: Environmental Assessment review of Havelock's wastewater needs and disposal plans
and permitting of selected alternative (currently evaluating speculative analyses request)
Opponents: Neuse River Foundation/other citizens opposed to any additional discharge to river
preferring to sacrifice Slocum Creek to keep contamination/nutrients in creek. Multiple
commenters objecting to permits(including several professors @ NCSU in Dept.of Marine
Earth&Atmos.Sciences as recently as 1/93)
Proponents: Havelock continues to develop plans to address wastewater needs for the area
UA5 RYrA',t @ J, ti rn&
TPZ-0. '7/ 1. 0 (5 j10)

North CM Wastewater Treatment Plant
The Town of Cary began operation of a 4.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant in 1984,discharging to
Crabtree Creek in the Neuse River basin. The need for expansion of the facility as a result of the rapid
growth occurring in the service area became evident in 1987. Therefore,Cary began the development of
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluating the wastewater disposal needs and alternatives
in April 1987. The draft EIS was'submitted in April 1988. The Departmental staff concerns with the
potential impact of the proposed increase wastewater discharge to Crabtree Creek resulted in
additional studies(mussel surveys)and modeling being required. Upon acceptance of the final EIS
conclusions,by the Department in September 1994,Cary submitted the NPDES permit application
requesting expansion to 12 MGD. Additionally,as part of the EIS,Cary committed to mitigative
measures including biological surveys of the creek,nutrient removal and enhancement of the town's
stormwater control program. It should be emphasized that Cary voluntarily requested a limit for total
nitrogen limits upon expansion.
The October publication of the notice of intent to issue a permit for expansion of the North Cary
wastewater treatment plant generated significant public interest. Concerns raised by interested parties
on the proposed permitting action included:
• Ouestions on the need for the expansion. The need for expansion was demonstrated by the Town
through analysis of the growth of the service area, resulting in a 12 MGD design flow projected to
address the needs for a 20 year period. Additionally, the North Cary wastewater treatment plant
is a regional facility serving Cary, Morrisville, Raleigh-Durham Airport and the Wake County
portion of the Research Triangle Park.
• Increased loading of nutrients to the Neuse River. Under the 4.0 MGD permit, total nitrogen was
only monitored,not limited. In fact,computing the permitted load of total nitrogen to the system
based on existing nitrogen concentrations and comparing those results to the permitted load for the
12 MGD,results in a net decrease in load at the expanded flow. The total phosphorous load will,
however,increase as a result of the expansion. Phosphorous is limited in the effluent in accordance
with the nutrient sensitive waters strategy adopted by the EMC in 1988. The Division also does not
have conclusive information that the Town is contributing to the nutrient problems in the Lower
Neuse River. Additionally, as the Cary discharge is located approximately 190 river miles
upstream of the estuary,much of the nutrients in the discharge are projected to be assimilated by
the time the treated wastewater travels to the estuary.
• The adequacy of the analysis of disposal alternatives. Given the volume of wastewater required to
be addressed,use of a land-based disposal system,such as spray irrigation, was determined to be
infeasible. Such a system would require approximately 14,000 acres, approximately equivalent in
size to Cary's entire residentially-zoned acreage.
• The location selected for holding the hearing(Cary versus New Bem). In accordance with the rules
governing public notice of permitting actions and public meetings, the appropriate location for the
meeting was determined to be Cary. The geographic area projected to be most affected by the
permitting decision was determined to be in the immediate vicinity of the discharge.
• Flow increases granted in the'Neuse River since implementation of the Basin Management Plan in
1993(over 50 MGD). Confusion on this issue arose as a result of the information documented in the
Basin Plan. The Plan identified the actual treatment plant capacities rather than permitted
capacities. Five major dischargers (Durham-Northside, South Cary, Goldsboro, Wake Forest and
Raleigh) in the upper Neuse Basin all had unbuilt,but permitted, capacity which totaled
approximately the 50 MGD at question. Several of these entities were in the midst of multiple-
year construction projects to complete expansion of their facilities (ex: Raleigh and Durham).
Following a public hearing on the requested expansion,the permit to discharge and authorization to
construct the facility was issued in March 1995.
Petitions challenging the issuance of the NPDES permit to Cary were filed in the Office of
Administrative Hearings by the Neuse River Foundation and the River Keeper in April 1995. The case
is pending in the Office of Administrative Hearings with an October hearing date scheduled. On-going
negotiations are occurring between the Division,the Town of Cary and the Neuse River Foundation.
The focus of these discussions regards potential reuse of wastewater.
I

T-
Neuse River Water&Sewer Au horiWffownchip #7
The Neuse River Water&Sewer Authority(Craven County) received monies through the Construction
Grants and Loans Section in 1985 to construct a 0.385 MGD nondischarge wastewater spray irrigation
system to service the Township#7 District in Craven County. In the 1990 renewal of the permit,based
on concerns associated with the level of wastewater in the lagoons at the end of the dry season(within
2 feet of the top of the lagoon),the permitted Flow was reduced to 0.350 MGD and a short-term permit
was reissued (18 months). Shortly after the subsequent renewal of the permit in 1992,the Authority
requested permission for an emergency authorization to bypass the spray irrigation fields and
discharge directly to Brices Creek. Numerous subsequent requests have been received to allow
additional discharges to Brices Creek.
The nondischarge permit issued to the Neuse River Water &Sewer Authority is unique in that the
Authority does not own the land used for the spray irrigation. With all other municipal spray
irrigation wastewater treatment and disposal systems, both the treatment system and irrigation fields
are owned and operated by the governmental entity. The failure of the system has been attributed in
part to the operational constraints of the system associated with the crop management aspects of the
system. The hydraulic needs for the management of the crop are lower than the hydraulic capacity of
the soils of the site, resulting in a lower rate of application than projected to be applied through the
spray irrigation permit. As a result of the reduced spray rates and wet weather, the treatment system
was soon at capacity and the Authority had to request permission for emergency bypasses into Brices
Creek to prevent breaching of the lagoons.
In November 1992, in an attempt to address the failing spray irrigation system, the Authority applied
for a permit to discharge OS MGD to the Neuse River. However,the application was returned in early
1993 as the Authority had not completed the Environmental Assessment documentation required.
Resubmittal of the application with the required documentation occurred in July 1993. The application
included documentation of a potential alternative to discharge, spray irrigation in the Croatan
National Forest. As a result of the potential nondischarge alternative and upon receipt of a letter from
the Authority stating land application would be pursued, the application for discharge was again
returned in December 1993.
In early 1993 as a result of the continued requests for emergency discharges to Brices Creek,the
Authority was placed under sewer moratorium. In attempting to find solutions to the continued
wastewater problems confronting Township 7, the Authority purchased the Ramada Inn wastewater
treatment plant in 1994, which discharges to the Trent River. Additionally, in 1994, the Authority
requested an expansion of the Ramada Inn wastewater facility from 0.075 MGD to 0.15 MGD. Following
a public hearing attended by approximately 1,000 people,the permit expansion was issued in January
1995. Authorization to construct the treatment plant expansion was issued in March 1995.
An additional wastewater treatment facility was also purchased by the Authority in May 1995, from
Stately Pines Utilities, Inc. This facility is permitted to discharge 0.10 MGD into the Neuse River. An
authorization to construct was issued in 1988 for 0.025 MGD,however,the construction has not yet been
completed. Completion of construction is projected in the near future.
The Neuse River Sewer and Water Authority continues to seek alternatives to handle the wastewater
needs for the Township 7 District. DEM staff have reviewed two potential additional land
application sites at the request of the Authority in May 1995. The Authority is in the process of
evaluating the feasibility of requesting a permit on these sites,based on the staffs review and
comments. Additionally, the Authority is pursuing modifications to the existing spray irrigation
system through raising of the lagoon dikes to create more volume and rehabilitating other components
of the treatment system to enablethe sewer moratorium to be lifted and to allow for growth in the area.

History:
1985 Nondischarge Permit Issued -Spray Irrigation System(0.385 MGD)
1990 Renewal of Spray Permit,,reduced flow/issued short term permit(0.35 MGD)
1992 Renewal of Permit
1992 Emergency Bypass Authorizations Discharges to Brices Creek requested
11/92 OS MGD NPDES Permit Requested for discharge to Neuse River
03/93 NPDES Application Returned -No EA completed
04/93 Moratorium on sewer connections(continued emergency bypasses occurring)
07/93 05 MGD NPDES Permit Application resubmitted with EA
12/93 Nondischarge Alternative (Croatan Forest Spray Irrigation) documented, Authority
withdraws NPDES permit application
04/94 Authority purchases Ramada Inn WWTP and requests expansion to 0.15 MGD
discharge is to Trent River
10/94 Public Hearing in New Bern on issuance of NPDES permit(1000 people in attendance)
O1/95 NPDES permit issued with expansion to 0.15 MGD
03/95 Authorization to Construct Issued for expansion
05/95 Authority purchases Stately Pines Utilities,Inc. WWTP for 0.1 MGD discharge into
Neuse River
05/95 DEM staff complete site visit with Authority to evaluate two potential additional spray
irrigation sites. Comments provided to Authority on feasibility of sites 6/95
07/95 Authority requests modification to existing lagoon system to raise dikes and perform other
rehabilitation work.
Issues: Wastewater needs,disposal options(discharge versus nondischarge)
Increase in Nutrients discharge&to the Neuse River
Actions: Permit modifications for both discharge and nondischarge systems
• Stately Pines facility NRW&SA will be requesting an ATC for the 0.10 MGD
• Nondischarge: Current application for modification of lagoon/rehab work
• Future Nondischarge Application (waiting submittal of application)
Opponents: Most attendees at Public Hearing(1000)were opposed to the expansion of the Ramada Inn
WWTP facility and will likely be opposed to the Stately Pines permit transfer. Attendance at hearing
was a result of Neuse River Foundation efforts. The objections raised to the issuance of the NPDES
permit for the expansion at the Ramada Inn site were the increase in wastewater discharged to the
river and no total nitrogen limit in the permit.
Proponents: Residents of Township fi7,Craven County(Neuse River Water&Sewer Authority)

I
New Bern Wastewater Treatment Plant
The New Bern trickling filter wastewater treatment plant, constructed in the late 1960's, was
originally rated and permitted for a 4.0 MGD discharge into the Neuse River. However, the hydraulic
rating of the treatment units were subsequently reduced to 2.35 MGD to meet new federal removal
criteria(85% BOD/T5S reduction). In 1979,New Bern began an evaluation of developing a regional
wastewater treatment and disposal system, with the discharge to the Neuse River. The Division
issued the requested permit in 1982 with limits reflective of secondary levels of treatment.
In 1987, New Bern initiated updating of the 201 Facilities Plan for wastewater treatment and disposal,
requesting information on the potential limits on nutrients from the Division. Simultaneously, the
Division was also completing studies and recommendations to the Environmental Management
Commission on designating the entire Neuse River Basin as nutrient sensitive and developing nutrient
management strategies. The Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) designation was completed in 1988 and
incorporated requirements for major dischargers to comply with total phosphorous limits of 2 mg/1 by
1993. During the renewal of the NPDES permit for the wastewater treatment plant discharge in 1988,
New Bem was advised that upon expansion of the permitted flow above 4.0 MGD or by May 1993,the
total phosphorous limit would become effective.
A meeting was held between the City of New Bern and the Division in 1990 to discuss future limits for
an expansion request for a 4.7 MGD permit for discharge to the Neuse River(doubling the treatment
train at the facility). Based on the 1987 discussions, at which the City was advised that nitrification
would not likely be required,and the City's subsequent updating of their future wastewater treatment
201 Facilities Plan, the Division concurred that permitting of the expansion at the existing secondary
levels of treatment with phosphorous removal was appropriate. However, the permit would require
the more intensive instream monitoring to evaluate the effect of the discharge. Publication of the
notice of intent to issue the expanded permit did result in the request for a hearing from the Neuse
River Foundation. However,based on an evaluation of the comments,no public hearing was held. The
concerns raised included compliance history, phosphorous removal,toxic affect of discharge,
interaction issues and alternatives to the discharge.
The phosphorous limit became effective in 1993 and the NPDES permit was subsequently reissued in
1994 in accordance with the Neuse River Basinwide permitting schedule.
In February 1995,the Division received a request from the City of New Bem for a proposed sewer
extension. The application requested permitting of a pump station, forcemain and gravity sanitary
sewer extension to service a proposed subdivision being developed by Weyerhaeuser. During the
review process the Division received numerous letters form letters and letters from the Neuse River
Foundation requesting that the peraut not be granted without first requiring the City to complete an
Environmental Assessment and an alternatives analysis of the "nondischarge" options. Additionally,
the letters requested that a public hearing be held on the proposed permit issuance. A determination
that the permit application was not subject to the Environmental Policy Act requirements,as it did not
qualify as a major activity, and a determination that the wastewater treatment facilities had
capacity to treat the wastewater to be generated by the project,resulted in the decision not to require an
Environmental Assessment or a public hearing. The permit was subsequently issued in May 1995.
Petitions challenging the issuance of the Sewer Extension permit were filed in the Office of
Administrative Hearings by the Neuse River Foundation and the River Keeper in June 1995. The case is
pending in the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The City of New Bern met with staff from the Division in July 1995 to discuss possible future
options to address the removal of the discharge from the Neuse River(this is confidential per
New Bern).

I I
Weyerhaeuser
Weyerhaeuser is the largest industrial discharger in the Neuse River basin. This is a bleached
Kraft paper mill which has a permitted discharge of 32 MGD. It is located in the upstream
portion of the Neuse River estuary near New Bern.
Weyerhaeuser was originally permitted to discharge 27 MGD by the EPA in 1973. Upon renewal,
the Division imposed stricter BODS limits than those previously given by the EPA. Permit limits
for oxygen-demanding substances were based on an empirical analysis(Level B)of the Neuse River
system. As a result of the limited assimilative capacity of the system and the inability of the
existing wastewater system to meet the limits,an SOC was issued which required:
1) Installation of a velocity meter 0.8 miles downstream of the discharge. If there was no
velocity in the river,no discharge could occur.
2) Performance of a study to design a wastewater management program.
3) Installation and maintenance of a side-stream oxidation system which would
supersaturate dissolved oxygen levels of the effluent when upstream concentrations were
less than 5.0 mg/L.
4) Demonstration that the wastewater management program will protect water quality
standards under worst-case conditions.
This began a series of modeling and intensive instream monitoring studies by both the Division and
Weyerhaeuser which continue today.
In the late 1980's, the EPA completed a nationwide study on dioxin in discharges from bleach pulp
and paper mills. Based on this study and public concerns,Weyerhaeuser received a limit for
dioxin in their permit and began process/effluent monitoring for the toxicant as well as annual fish
tissue monitoring.
Finding dioxin at levels of concern,Weyerhaeuser immediately began a comprehensive plan to
eliminate dioxin production via two major process changes:
1) the installation of a 24-ton per day chlorine dioxide generator (completed in 1989) to
replace the use of elemental chlorine—the main cause of dioxin formation.
2) the installation and integration of a new oxygen delignification system (1991 start-up).
In 1991,Weyerhaeuser requested an expansion of their discharge. After additional modeling
analyses and negotiations between Weyerhaeuser and the Division,an expansion to 32 MGD was
granted,given the following conditions are met:
1) The side-stream oxygenation system would be required to add 172 pounds per million
gallons of effluent;
2) No discharge shall occur when dissolved oxygen levels are less than or equal to 3 mg/L at
any station in the Neuse River monitored by Weyerhaeuser.
3) A TP limit of 2 mg/L must be met by 1993 per the NSW Management Strategy adopted by
the Environmental Management Commission.
In July 1995,Weyerhaeuser announced an optimization program which will reduce the amount of
water used in their process by 40%. The$100 million project will consist of technological and
process changes which will increase efficiency and production at the plant while decreasing the
amount of bleaching process wastewater discharge by greater than 50%.

In the past, the Neuse River Foundation has submitted comment letters to the Division as has the
Southern Environmental Law Center (on behalf of the Coastal Federation). The comments from
the SELC pertained to dioxin requirements which were subsequently placed in the permit. The
NRF comments (in 1994) emphasized the need for continued study of the river and urged the
company and the Division to seek ways to reduce the total discharge flow.

' I
z?.�o PfGOo 2� Zs� l��vgcocl`
Girt' of �RJe2of/�
• ZrZS�,
�Asr �rJy Su�cuM GzK� C—Sw /U�t�l
03Dy/r
WWW 6�y '
wow
coo
USAAWNE Cr�kP
oco
a � Poft'
as '
rnr 4 q.jy 70
(`�tlAR4E' POIAJT
�-�HJet.oG� vJWrp
e - Gea'� fll sToey
LC� y�l�SS Also
. Sl4n1ED Goujl5iL A5 S-- �iJ pASIAJ yl-SSogAe,7. J 6G4, 3/2S/15>
° A�tcDrcAi6D (994 r r
CNkAzieh!,> fFF&-TiJE 17AT"E DF ItJ U� ITS T G/�/97 LhFT'F1G- L`FPJdJs low
9/Z /A6 - (L�c'IJED /ZEAIav�L A-PP- ( IT EX7• 2'/3t/99>
o
3 s 9
Cot)JtirtTC-P Tb Z STArC f4c11JA E�1 5u41>c,G �aocGSs
PAP:-- OP CoNOL1AIJt& e0WJ9
Ga�R�r urn.iTs �
M yd
p 3 CGR55 /d -= D�rc.y. .�Nr:o2rn��
Pf = � ww CYJI�� s-Hy Cofss L t7e6 7-zl f3/JR- evelJ 7-dou5:r/
735 _ 3d�q-s
AIW3-nl
IP 0,'7 AJ4. u1Es.CKt-y -C&MPcts> I �/k, (Vla�
TN 4.o /
• (�2ay Aft', WE6K�y ytM7LEs�
p,Y? . A�JNuA� F-CovvJ'1 '^ I • 3 M41D (68 °g r�F PF� -I
DoM L' ,CV e ✓ysf&C A;VLL- (/J LjICA-I'C�C I.rj M4� +Y CF(A�y6 4Q--S Ceg , J

I � �
4v
Loth I CgG j42• ► A-D
CJ�ODs)
LA- -
Coin �1Fi� /�i �� LAM IT ATE �o , n
pJpu�� �b"fooD Iry r
v ItG 114(9r�s
I i '

NNN
I-FF
000
aaa
AAA
tV ev a
IN ?ataq�r ? �ilnrDS Ae',y �oiuNy �,- tocr�no�v
uVa��5 Ya i�� /�—usE pju-r car1T F,N> Af-c
007 pF}GLY of Nu:,14&NT . I�ebI)5 6-tr Ilon7
'AnINGX(tj� Ra6*ci MA-y tnlqii—i Oci�"5ir-N `t< getoc4T,o,J

�Ae FA u u
T�
r-�
WM IT (koN , ,—ort (,J
S8. (D =/a•'; �(kQoRi" Co��. ? � P-(�2T T6/+L
MkSS �
CF = 1,9
LoN AJS.� \
Linn IT � �03 _� IZIa3 Cam. G1J sr��-� )
TP
NO Ll/NIT (Pry N�Sc (ZULtS)
1/ vi �I` (�otillTb2l� s
BuT raraEw 3f�/ 2
7TMb UMIT
q AJb . v.IKLy SA++A��ES
YF
0 r7
c��ocu+N- wcFlrt t-ZS+? tMP&CIS GarLfy{ P+.. FjeL7OGA7Cb
i�o NE,,,srq-ruAg'�

DENR/DWQ NcT jenl
>'
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT tort
NPDES No. NCOO21253. I-lavelocic \VW'1'1) see ayx -�4C'G-r D
f2t
Facility Information
A p )licant/Facility Name: City of Havelock/ havelock AVVV'I'P
Applicant Address: P.O. Drawer 368. Havelock. NC 28532
Facility Address: North Jackson Drive
Permitted Plow 1.9 MGD
Tvj)c of Waste: 100'%u Domestic (inactive aretrcatntcnt )rOgranl)
Facility/Permit Status: Rcaiewal
COUHM Craven
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream: Gast Prong Regional Office: WaRO
Slocum Creek
Stream Classification: C-Sw NSW Quad 1-131N\V
SI: 2 1-It Z-1- 1 Havelock
303(d) Listcd?: &=2 Permit Writer: S. Wilson
oN \q9 Subbasiu: 030410 Date: April 4. 2000
yt
�c ,Pp0 Drainage Area (mi2):
( Summer 7Q10 (( ls) 0
6� Wintcr 7Q10 (cls): Q
Average: Flow (cfs):
IWC (01)): 100
Primary SIC Cocle: 4952
SUMMARY
Havelock operates it 1.9 MGD wastewater treatment facility that discharges into the East Prong
of Slocum Creek in the NCLIse River Basin.
�tt',i,'p'�c SY5 - F��CcALi L
TOXICITY TESTING:
CLIFI'ent. RcquircnusaLClaronic P/F Q 90% (also rccoutrnencled with renewal)
Havelock laas had 2 Iailures in the previous 2 years. which werc inumecliately followed up with
passes.
COMPLIANCE: SUMMARY: BASED ON THI PREVIOUS 2 YEARS
Havelock has had two limit excursions cluring the past 2 years (this is based on computer
download only).
September 1999: Flow = 1.9141 MGD (limit, 1.9 MGDO; this occurred as it result of Hurricane
Floyd.
July 1998: CBODS = 6.92 mg/1 (3.0 nag/1 limit). Facility was assessed S1338-80 and appealed
the assessment. Penalty was dropped. enforc:enu:nl. cost of $88.80 wits paid h-cf. Case LV 98-
1 671.
INSTREAM klONITORING:
Havelock is part of the Lower NCnse Basin Association (LNBA) and is not rcquircd to perform
the irtstreana numitnring required in this permit.
PROPOSED CHANGES:
Havelock currently is required to meet. extremely strim'Ci t CB0D5 ;tncl NI-13-N limits
Lis well as TN and 'fP limits clue to previously documcnied localized impacts.
IA9onitot ing fol medals I uantetel's (Other than copp( t and Zinc) h avc been ClintinaWd �
from the permit clue tO lack of c1clection in the elllilem (lead. nu kel. and claromiurn).
NC has nO WQ ;iimd:ird for aluniinuru and this pai mnetcr. hla. copper and zinc. is 41
ve d ry rl h')endent On aren d ss and pH linn(it has bre•n enatcd as a monitoring

rcquin.nwut). The faeility has no industrial wastewater and their pretreatment
program is inactive.
PROPOSISD SCHEDULE. FOR PERMIT ISSUAN(-'E:
Draft. Permit Lo Public Notiee: April 12. 2000 PML.)
Pcnnit SChednle.d to ISSUC: May 29. 2000 (est_)
STATE CONTACT:
It you have any questions on any of the above infornikmi or on Lhe attached permit. please
contact. Sumni ",ikon at [phone] ext. 510.
REGIONAL 01,FICE COMMENT:
NAME: DATE:

St�^'t � iN LAst gns�N � I ,
NOT la+Pkt
7
® LAC tjo p� szuFiG
® l of "PONY
s x
o, 3 - 5 1,
D5 :
NN3 01
cR� �s� VftLul
0.
cj . Zo coot)
Chi
um IT
M,Sdr
woy
�O�s C3o-Ds

MOST RECENT CHRONOLOGY (PAST 4 YEARS)
3/31/00
1993, September - Previous permit issued (included limits for.'discharge at Littl(',
Creek and 1.9 MGD on Lhe Neuse River)
1995 - Clayton joined Lhe LNBA.
1997, November - AUthorizalto❑ to Con9(rLLee permit (CG&L) - modifications to plant
iueluding tertiary filter and UV disinfection.
1997, November - Permit modification (hat removed monitoring for nickel and cadmium
based on no reasonable potential to exceed WQ standard.
1997, December - Applied for permit renewal.
1998, April - Permit was drafted for Clayton. Similar to this draft permit. Proposed
BOD5/NI13-N limits of 5/2 to, be implemented within one year. Mass load for nitrogen is
the same as this draft permit (21.400 Ibs/year).
1998, June through 2000, March - D\NQ has to revise nitrogen allocation, submit Tl\9DL
for EPA approval, and revise Neuse rules. In February 2000, EPA approved NCDWQs •TMDL
and the EMC approved revised Lcmporaiy Neuse rules.
�I h- � �� Agou'1- la-.ILA I�/•t �� _.
3 - F20Ds
C0o7
VIP"r x 2
o S
, * q
Vp9 b2,lJ ��4

RIP
,
c Fa�ba
- N7 -
� = s
VP
15�
41H3
f r ODD, �ukxc�D 4� S ) sue- �+,/,-J < 4u
l 3oD is } 07•�>
` 2 Nvp
W
C' wig

2 �yZV e` •- - �I O.S
(9, 3 i
Gµ�T 8�'ser� a,�/ i✓�OTi/�%/oN � �.�oc�.0 �E/� SruVy
I
/4Yo na 0_ I
t Ue�;. Lr u r5 IcT?2 cgop I-
_ 4 '
3q ;
1��• I.7 T -
I
�h �• - �Sl1AMQZ�I.r
YY • -
- g
4. cf o x,z_ ease�r—�a = lo• I,s + L 4,s
GBoDs = -C,Z4 19 .E = x •�1�� + o.a • �� 5
,�

SOC INFORMATION New Reeor�d)
Status Facility Name WTP, CHTTY-OF +z3 u _
-� xa-ate SOC ITEMS CASH,RECEIPT
County CRAVEN Region WARD`
yp STIPULATED
SOC Number 89 066Ezi
T e Order 67b eENALTtes
Permit Number INC002+1�253 Mun(1)/Ind(2) ME Fee $1'00:00
Wastewater Codes I' r—,--Iffl— FOG Maj(1)/Min(2) �— Upfront Penalty ,R$0201
Received Request 2'/22/90 Void FZ—= CG M112
Received Application 2/22%90 Denied F=—=— FAU Supervisor
RO Draft Received if/4TG90 To Notice 3%22'/90 Ops Branch Supervisor
RO Draft Reviewed Signed "/ 0%90 To Chief %111T/90.
Received Signed Order Expires 8%33991
Rescind Superseded F�—
_._.
River Basin 0�41'0
Flow Allocation
Comments '
w
Parameters 'FloWffox 1119

_T- Water Quality Section Enforcement Tracking System
1Vew Recotd i - f Pnnt
Case Numbef- LV 98 - 167 �� Violator HAVELOCK WWTP, CITY OF
�Permrt'#; NC0021253 Statutoiy AutFiorny 143 215.6A(a),(b),&(c)
— .
h=Address'; P. O. Box 368 County:Craven R WARO
"Havelock NC 28532 Subbastn 30410 0
��� 0 -
Mat/Mtn' 1� Iyliin/Non1V1` 1� _ Farm#� ;� FactlttyType NPDES
Central Office Log in-Date 1. r Staff=Revtew.Comblete
Central Office,Contacta Vanessa Manuel Assistant Seciion-Chief Review_0
n
x3 ;.
® Re ional Contact lBarry Adams .
Section Chief Review'
Date Penalty Assessed' 10/27/98 Petmtttee-Contact • z
Violation Month/Year ul 98 '
y Remission Request'` ' Penttoned to OAH 12/04/98 `'
Letter Date' 10/19/98
Enf Conf Date .'� Penalty Retracted
3 mPenalty AmounE $1,250 00� '� - a
t Remtsston:Amount`0 3Case to_Collecttorin�
,, Damages R t
x t Enf Conf` Gteen°0Intunctioit 0
Enforcement Costs: $88 80
k q
i
appear'
Total Case Penalty; $1 338 80 before EMC rece ved.' 'n 6
- f ;Total Patd $88 80
`EMC Hears Case - z
F&D Received ReplvxDue'By
_ Case Closed 04/23/99
Remmizion
11/02/98 x 12/02/98
oun .; ' :r n '.gig i
Amt_
,
Main Payment Remission . Petition Superior Collection Settlement ' FasU. -
Admen
Court -'"`* r=
r

• •�' ICI(NORTH G�g044:
• Y
CITY OF HAVELOCK
Post Office Drawer 368
Havelock, N.C. 28532
'HCOAPo TEO•..
September 17, 1998
Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
NPDES Permits Unit
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535 ,n
Raleigh,North Carolina 27626-0535
_
1-7-0
Subject: l
Subject: NPDES Permit #NC0021253 Renewal
Dear Mr. Weaver:
0
Enclosed is the City of Havelock's application for NPDES permit renewal. The
application fee of$300,00 was included with the original request dated August 7, 1998. Our
current permit expires on March 31, 1999. We would also like to request consideration of a
change in our CBOD limit of 3 mg/1 to a BOD limit of 5 mg/l. In filling out the long form, I
noticed that Havelock's facility was designed to remove 95% of influent BOD, and our current
limit requires us to remove> 98%. Also, our fecal coliform monthly average has not exceeded
10 colonies per 100 ml since the upgraded facility went on line in January 1998. Therefore, we
would like to request a change in monitoring fecal coliforms from daily to three days per week.
If you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (252) 444-
6401 or to contact Susan Rexrode at [phone].
Sincerely, )
Joseph R. Huffman
City Manager
Phone [phone] printed oniec oledpape• Fax [phone]

ICI
II
�� lj?pcF/D Ili .
'. ,�/cao Z1z53
l ; 7f Gas
Zo
I l AEG
> cuRc,tyy
.II
�I
1I55ib/c coh5�-me
l0 Lld lnGf IFU
Alee
6 .